Reporters not bothering to do research, or use wikipedia/encyclopedia.

If you do a Google search for "Kill Bill C-61" you will find an article by Terence Corcoran of the Financial Post. It's a silly little article where he suggests that the massive diverse group of people opposed to C-61 are some sort of leftist Telecom Trotskyites. He makes specific reference to the domain name that I applied for, which suggests he is reader of this BLOG. His claims of what opponents (those named directly like Geist and those named indirectly like me) actually want or believe are entirely fictional.

Here is my reality for those new to this site: I am opposed to the policy direction articulated by C-61 because I don't believe that the Government should be picking winners and losers in an otherwise free marketplace, and believe that the Government should be protecting the interests of the majority of the economy (not a tiny few special interest groups), and should be protecting tangible property rights. The protection of the rights of owners of information technology against attacks like those from Prentice's bill is what brought me into this debate.

Interesting -- a strong free-market/property-rights activist being labelled a Trotskyite? Seems like some reporter didn't even do their homework or look up the meanings of the words he used.

This is not to say that there aren't people on the political left that are opposed to C-61. This issue crosses the traditional spectrum so that you will find more right-wing people opposed, and groups calling themselves unions in support. At the end of the day, those who bother to do a little bit of research will figure out that there are far more opponents to this policy direction than supporters, and that the special interest old-economy beneficiaries of the policy is even smaller than the list of supporters.