The Role of Canada in the Global Village
Over the years, ICT, information communication technologies, has lead to a smaller world. A world where information can be transmitted instantaneously, a world where the quality of the information received has vastly improved. This information highway era has become so efficient that it has created a "global village". Canada is placed in a rather unique societal position today in this global village. It stands out from the rest of the world with its culturally diverse population, community networking and experts in the field. From representing its multicultural citizens through broadcasting programming, to creating successful community networks, and having leading experts in the field of communications, Canada must be considered one of the leading model communication innovators to the rest of the world.
Multiculturalism in Canadian Broadcasting
Canada is an ethnically diverse country. The notion of "multiculturalism" began circulating in Canada in 1971 and is a word that is now commonly used to define this country, unlike the word "melting-pot" which is used to describe Americans' loss of ethnic identity. The broadcasting system in Canada is pressured by the government to acknowledge the culturally diverse society by broadcasting a fair representation of the population in terms of ethnicity. This is achieved through the many acts that have been passed through parliament: the multiculturalism policy of 1971, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982, the Ethnic Broadcasting Policy of 1985, and most recent, the Broadcasting Act of 1991. These legislative and policy frameworks have provided guidelines for the management of Canadia...
... middle of paper ...
...global context, Canada is one of the most unique countries on the globe.
Works Cited
Attallah, Paul and Leslie Regan Shade. Mediascapes: New Patterns in Canadian
Communications. Canada:Thomson Nelson, 2002.
The Acacia Initiative. www.idrc.ca/acacia/outputs/op-snet.htm. April 1, 2003.
The Delicate Acts of "Colour Balancing": Multiculturalism and Canadian
Broadcasting Policies and Practices.
http://cjc-online.ca/title.php3?page=5&journal_id=4&document=1. April 1, 2003.
McLuhan, Marshall. "Gutenberg Galaxy", 1962.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Marshall_McLuhan. April 1, 2003.
McLuhan, Marshall (1911-1980). www.regent.edu/acad/schcom/rojc/mdic/mcluhan.html.
April 1, 2003.
Roughing It in the Electronic Bush: Community Networking in Canada.
http://cjc-online.ca/title.php3?page=3&journal_id=31&document=1. April 1, 2003.
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
Throughout his novel, Texas Tough: The Rise of America’s Prison Empire, author and professor Robert Perkinson outlines the three current dominant purposes of prison. The first, punishment, is the act of disciplining offenders in an effort to prevent them from recommitting a particular crime. Harsh punishment encourages prisoners to behave because many will not want to face the consequences of further incarceration. While the purpose of punishment is often denounced, many do agree that prison should continue to be used as a means of protecting law-abiding citizens from violent offenders. The isolation of inmates, prison’s second purpose, exists to protect the public. Rehabilitation is currently the third purpose of prison. Rehabilitation is considered successful when a prisoner does n...
The current use of soft money in the US Governmental elections is phenomenal. The majority of candidates funding comes from soft money donations. Congress has attempted to close these funding loop holes; however they have had little success. Soft money violates standards set by congress by utilizing the loop hole found in the Federal Election Commission’s laws of Federal Campaigns. This practice of campaign funding should be eliminated from all governmental elections.
Should we enact a campaign finance reform and ban soft money contributions? Campaign finance is among the top governmental and social issues of today's society. The truth is that today's campaigns are being financed by members of supported political parties that can afford to send their candidate to the top. These contributions are known as soft money contributions. Soft money can be defined as, unlimited union and corporate donations to political parties that allow special interest power brokers to have their way in Washington. Ultimately, These contributions are taking away pure democracy that is given to today's citizens. I, particularly, am interested in this issue because I would like to see the potential that our leaders have by running a successful campaign without large amounts of soft money contributions. It is important that candidates take our democratic system seriously and not toy around with our involvement in today's governmental system. Soft money contributions amounted to $487 million in the last election cycle, up from $271 million in 1996 and $86 million in 1992, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
Reformation on the funding of political campaigns has been an ongoing battle between trying to create an equal and democratic balance of representation for the people and the rich and powerful who have succeeded in using the media to control those people. With The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972 and the establishment of the Federal Election Commission in 1975, steps were taken to hold the wealthy and public officials accountable for corruption and to try and prevent it. Though the act could be viewed as a positive sign of peaceful evolution in the direction o...
There have been laws put into place to reform the campaign finance system in the United States. It is apparent that money greatly influences American elections and it has massive effects upon the outcome of recent elections. The laws encourage citizens to participate in elections. Although it may be unknown to many, money greatly influenced the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.
Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.
The subject of campaign finance reform sounds so dull, but it is necessary to understand that reform helps to keep the society flowing smoothly. Therefore, what is the current status of campaign finance reform? In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed by Congress. It was also known as the McCain-Feingold Act (Sidlow, 2013, p.213). It banned soft money at federal levels and regulated campaign ads from interest groups because the enormous amount of money spent by interest groups for their ads had the appearance of corruption (South University Online, 2013). There is so much money floating around right now that I fear the common man may soon have little say in what happens in this country. Now the super PACs and 501c's are spreading their influences too. Can reform be a realistic expectation of the American political process?
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
In today's society, we are facing many changes. Our own family, neighbors, and countrymen are afraid of many dangers which influence their lives. Although many people have fear which resonates in their consciousness and unconsciousness, the United States has a comparatively low crime rate. Despite this low crime rate, America incarcerates it's citizens five times the rate of Canada and seven times that of most European democracies.(Slambrouck, Paul. 24) Our society needs to be changed. We cannot blame the individuals involved in wrongdoing but we can blame our society who raised these criminals. Of course someone who kills another human being needs to be put away in some form; but we need to make changes. We need to help as many maladjusted people as we can. There are some steps which really seem to work. There are many prison inmates who come from broken homes and have low self-esteem. What needs to be done to help these insecure people, who are at war with themselves and society, is to rehabilitate them. The problem is the prison officials do not try to teach the prisoners how to learn from their mistakes.(McGovern, Celeste. 42) What actually happens is that criminals tend to be better thefts, and have the ability to out smart the police. Our politicians need to stress how important vocational, educational, drug-treatment, and religious programs are, in order to improve the attitude and demeanor of these convicted felons. This is the only way to keep ex-con's from jail.(DeLuca, H.R. 38) Another problem with America's prison system is overcrowding. There is a huge amount of young conscienceless offenders who are entering today's prisons. Imagine trying to compact eight gallons of water in a five gallon con...
Campaign Finance Reform has become an increasingly discussed topic due to the events that have occurred throughout the 2016 election thus far. Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders and Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump have both used the Campaign Finance Reform (CFR) debate as a means to garner additional support from people who feel that “big money” i.e. corporations and the super wealthy, have influenced politics for far too long. “Big money” in politics is an issue that needs to be addressed. With each new election cycle the amount of money being poured into campaign funding continues to grow. The majority of this money is produced by large donations from Political Action Committees (PACs) which are funded by the
In the essay "Prison "Reform" in America," Roger T. Pray points out the much attention that has been devoted to research to help prevent crimes. Showing criminals the errors of their ways not by brutal punishment, but by locking them up in the attempt to reform them. Robert Pray, who is a prison psychologist, is currently a researcher with the Utah Dept. of Corrections. He has seen what has become of our prison system and easily shows us that there is really no such thing as "Prison Reform"
I’ve loved politics since I was in 6th grade, I didn’t always have the best understanding of it all when I was younger but I was able to recognize that there were a lot of citizens who were disgruntled with their government’s progress. For example, as of August 2014, congresses’ approval rating is only 14% (Riffkin, 2014). As I’ve aged I realized that the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding corporate money and personal spending limits have made the government a less effective tool for the American citizens and that is why I’ve chosen to write on the influence of money in politics. I believe this is the most important political issue that we currently face because we are unable to pass the bills that reflect the views of the American people
All over America, crime is on the rise. Every day, every minute, and even every second someone will commit a crime. Now, I invite you to consider that a crime is taking place as you read this paper. "The fraction of the population in the State and Federal prison has increased in every single year for the last 34 years and the rate for imprisonment today is now five times higher than in 1972"(Russell, 2009). Considering that rate along crime is a serious act. These crimes range from robbery, rape, kidnapping, identity theft, abuse, trafficking, assault, and murder. Crime is a major social problem in the United States. While the correctional system was designed to protect society from offenders it also serves two specific functions. First it can serve as a tool for punishing the offender. This involves making the offender pay for his/her crime while serving time in a correctional facility. On the other hand it can serve as a place to rehabilitate the offender as preparation to be successful as they renter society. The U.S correctional system is a quite controversial subject that leads to questions such as how does our correctional system punish offenders? How does our correctional system rehabilitate offenders? Which method is more effective in reducing crime punishment or rehabilitation? Our correctional system has several ways to punish and rehabilitate offenders.