anyone not recognizing the people in the ad as actors; nonetheless a caption identifies them as such while stating that their stories are based on real incidents, which NOM enumerates here.
What the cases boil down to is this: you do business with the public, you don't discriminate, whether you run a church with a hall to rent out, wedding photography business, or whatever.
The Human Rights Campaign [http://www.hrc.org/12470.htm has more about the ad campaign], debunking the cases of supposed discrimination it refers to. Also, the people in the ad are actors. Best quote from HRC:
“What’s next for the National Organization for Marriage? Will they hire legendary infomercial pitchman Ron Popeil to hawk their phony agenda?” said Human Rights Campaign Spokesman Brad Luna.
We used to call it "selling out" - as in selling out our self-respect and our image to corporations for money, something which Dr. Patrick Moore has obviously done long ago. He made a name for himself as an environmentalist, and then he decided he had to make a living somehow and "sold out" that image to be a corporate hump.
This is the worst of betrayals!! Concerned environmentalists everywhere are now under a cloud of doubt, thanks to Dr. Patrick Moore's selling out. Any criticism of industry now has this taint of Dr. Patrick Moore, who was once respected as an environmentalist and is now saying "it is all okay, don't worry about the pollution, man" [i.e. -"so why are you still complaining?"] .
The environmentalist message is now more urgent that ever. The world is heating up from a fossil fuel fever, the toxins are accumulating in every living thing and especially in those at the top of the food chain, and even the economy is dying - we need to DECARBONISE, NATURALISE! [and "De-Dr.Patrick Moore-ise"].
The Alberta Government site that David linked for us says that "only 5% of Canada's emissions comes from the Oil Sands" - but that is 5% from one single oil producing site, so it is significant. I suppose another way to look at it is that "Canada could reduce it's total emissions in one single swipe by shutting in the tar sands". That is significant too.
It is obvious that this PR "branding" campaign is not fair and balanced, it is a blatant attempt by the Alberta Government to assuage the public opinion on the tar sands. The question must be asked: "Why is the Alberta Government putting in ANY effort to shape public opinion for any corporate entity?"
The job of government is to represent the electorate, and I would bet that a majority of Albertans would say "SHUT IT IN" if they knew the whole story, from royalty holidays and exploration grants to the pollution/cancer-causing toxins from it's operations, and destruction of the Athabasca River.
IT AIN'T WORTH IT - financially, environmentally, morally - for Albertans.... it is only worth something to the investors, none of whom cares a hoot for the Fort Chipewan people or the River or the Fort Mac area landscape, or the ducks.
anyone not recognizing the people in the ad as actors; nonetheless a caption identifies them as such while stating that their stories are based on real incidents, which NOM enumerates here.
What the cases boil down to is this: you do business with the public, you don't discriminate, whether you run a church with a hall to rent out, wedding photography business, or whatever.
The Human Rights Campaign [http://www.hrc.org/12470.htm has more about the ad campaign], debunking the cases of supposed discrimination it refers to. Also, the people in the ad are actors. Best quote from HRC:
I'm not for any censorship of viewing its use in any media. No censorship for any purpose.
The Alberta Government site that David linked for us says that "only 5% of Canada's emissions comes from the Oil Sands" - but that is 5% from one single oil producing site, so it is significant. I suppose another way to look at it is that "Canada could reduce it's total emissions in one single swipe by shutting in the tar sands". That is significant too.
It is obvious that this PR "branding" campaign is not fair and balanced, it is a blatant attempt by the Alberta Government to assuage the public opinion on the tar sands. The question must be asked: "Why is the Alberta Government putting in ANY effort to shape public opinion for any corporate entity?"
The job of government is to represent the electorate, and I would bet that a majority of Albertans would say "SHUT IT IN" if they knew the whole story, from royalty holidays and exploration grants to the pollution/cancer-causing toxins from it's operations, and destruction of the Athabasca River.
IT AIN'T WORTH IT - financially, environmentally, morally - for Albertans.... it is only worth something to the investors, none of whom cares a hoot for the Fort Chipewan people or the River or the Fort Mac area landscape, or the ducks.
Pages