No "Support our Troops" Billboard, Magnets Allowed - by CF

[The Bread Guy]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act  - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Thanks, now take it down, military says
by Alan Woods, National Post, 7 Jun 06, p. A6

''OTTAWA - A Toronto organization has been ordered by the military to remove a billboard that urges Canadians to "Support our troops" because it breaks the law and could interfere with a Canadian Forces' fundraising campaign.

Government lawyers, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, contacted the National Citizens' Coalition on Monday afternoon warning that a cease- and-desist order could be issued if it failed to scrap the advertisement in downtown Toronto.

Gerry Nichols, the head of the group, has indicated he will not contravene the law, but that the success of a planned trust fund to help the families of dead soldiers is now in jeopardy.

Defence officials confirmed the facts yesterday, explaining the group's decision to give magnets in the shape of a red ribbon, which say "Support our troops," to people who donate cash to a trust fund would interfere with a similar campaign being conducted by the Military Family Resource Centre, which is selling yellow magnets.

"It's shocking to me," Mr. Nichols said. "We're just doing something to say thank you and to support the men and women who are putting their lives in danger in places like Afghanistan and we're told we can't do it."

Cmdr. Denise LaVoilette said the Forces are flattered by the gesture, but said it interferes with a government-run program, which takes precedence. It also contravenes the National Defence Act. ''

 

[pbi]

I don't know all the details here, but if the facts are as they appear (always a risk in the media...)I certainly hope that:

a) the CF met with the NCC and tried to work out a cooperative approach before resorting to court actio against people who want to help us; and

b) that somebody in authority is sending the NCC the message that even if there is a legal fight waged by some peope in DND (as opposed to by soldiers in the field force), those of us in uniform appreciate the support and the good intent.

Cheers

 

[Hot Lips]

I agree pbi...a cooperative approach with these people who's only intent was to be helpful...

I think there is a negative enough persona (in some circles) surrounding the Cf with regards to A-stan that a little collaboration might go a long way here.

A shame...never seems to fail that good will is squashed

HL

 

[pbi]

I have to wonder if actual uniformed CF people are involved in this turf fight, or if it's DND or DJustice lawyers pursuing some higher Fed Govt legal issue. NCC are usually  fairly strong supporters of the CF: I hope we thought about that before taking them on.

Cheers

 

[old medic]

You can see a banner here on their website. I'm not sure if that indicates what the
billboard(s) looked liked.
http://morefreedom.org/

 

[probum non poenitet]

I don't know all the details of this latest incident, but the NCC is a very politicized organization.

They have in the past attempted to co-op the Forces 'trademark' to push forth their political agenda.

It's not as simple as it seems at first glance, and the fact that the NCC is crying victim smacks of B.S. to me.
Judging from past experience, there would have been a 'hidden catch' to the 'suppor the troops' byline.
I'm giving DND the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[pbi]

I don't know all the details of this latest incident, but the NCC is a very politicized organization.

They have in the past attempted to co-op the Forces 'trademark' to push forth their political agenda.

It's not as simple as it seems at first glance, and the fact that the NCC is crying victim smacks of B.S. to me.
Judging from past experience, there would have been a 'hidden catch' to the 'suppor the troops' byline.
I'm giving DND the benefit of the doubt on this one.

You could be quite right, which is why I caveated my original post. It seems very strange that DND would go after a group in such a way without reason. Does anybody among us know more of the details?

Cheers

 

[DBA]

A trust fund for the support of the troops held in private hands doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Such funds I think need some sort of public charter and independent directors. Otherwise the parent organization will allways be tempted to use the fund as a source of influence. This leads to spending the money where it gets the most bag for the buck for the parent organization and not for who the fund was advertised as supporting. If the organization is political it ends up being nothing but political fundraising for themselves only loosely connected to the cause or who's name they are raising funds.

I don't have much knowledge of the organization in question here but without a clear statement of what the money will be used for and some independent oversite it's abuse prone.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

http://www.gerrynicholls.blogspot.com/

DND Now Says NCC "Support our Troops" Campaign OK

I just got off the phone with Major Dale MacEachern a spokesman for the Department of Defence.

Here’s the message he gave to me:

“The National Citizens Coalition doesn’t have to take down its “Support our Troops” billboard in downtown Toronto.

“Officials from the Department of Defence told us a few days ago our billboard violated the law,” says NCC vice president Gerry Nicholls. “But they now say the billboard and the rest of the `Support our Troops’ campaign are perfectly legal.”

Nicholls says this is a victory for free speech.

“Canadians should have the right to express gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces who are risking their lives,” says Nicholls. “And one of the freedoms they are fighting to defend is the right of free expression.”

The NCC billboard was part of a campaign to raise funds for a special trust fund it set up to assist the families of fallen Canadian soldiers.

“We now hope Canadians will help us in this important effort by visiting our website at http://www.morefreedom.org/,”says Nicholls.

Nicholls also says he is please this issue has been resolved.

“We support the military,” says Nicholls. “We are on their side.”

Here is message on this matter the NCC received from Major Dale MacEachern, a spokesman form the DND:

Acting Chief of Defence Staff of Canadian Forces has apologized to Mr. Peter Coleman, President of the National Citizens Coalition and has indicated that we are very pleased to see Canadians supporting our troops and that we strongly support the kind of private endeavour for our men and women in uniform.

Lower level staff with the legal section of the Department developed a position that was communicated to the National Citizens Coalition.

Regretfully this was done prior to approval being received from higher command.

Senior officials reviewed the circumstances of this case and have informed the NCC that we support this particular campaign.

The Department will communicate in writing to Mr. Coleman. This communication will indicate the Department does not have issues with billboards, magnetic ribbons or the campaign to support Canadian forces personnel.

In addition, Chief Military Personnel will be calling Mr. Coleman to find ways we can work together on this project.”

I am quite glad this situation has been resolved. After all, we are on the military’s side.

This is also a victory for free speech.

Anyone wishing to contribute to the special trust fund the NCC is setting up to help the military families of fallen soldiers go here. 

 

[Carbon-14]

Its interesting.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper was president of the NCC at one time.  I really don't understand how DND could have a problem with a "Support our Troops" billboard; there have been plenty of them around Edmonton.  Although I wish they'd think of something other then the red ribbon since it doesn't exactly jive with the yellow ribbons already out there.

 

[probum non poenitet]

Well, if you look closely at the red ribbon, they have slipped www.morefreedom.org on it.

That's very, very sleazy in my opinion.  Notice they also mentioned the website prominently in the article in Teddy Ruxpin's post.

It's advertising, and political to boot. DND should have stuck to its guns.

Bad precedent.

 

[TMM]

I really don't understand how DND could have a problem with a "Support our Troops" billboard; there have been plenty of them around Edmonton.

I can see a problem, not with "Support the Troops" but with using it for their own fundraising. Yes, I know that it is for trust funds but seeing support the troops and make a donation to deceased soldier's family trust fund, many civis would get the impression that it is a CF managed fund and blame them should anything go amiss. Anyone can set up a trust fund for anything.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What was the basis of the original complaint?  Did DND believe there was some sort of copyright or trademark infringement?

 

[Cloud Cover]

I think that it was a bit of a "passing off" or misrepresentation issue, nothing more. The NCC are a bit of a scary group in their own right, IMO.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Could you imagine a single group in the States telling everyone to 'cease and desist' with their 'Support the Troops' merchandise campaign? Totally ludicrous. Sounds more like someone trying to protect a 'cash cow' than worrying about a copyright.

 

[probum non poenitet]

Here's a bit of background.

Just before last Christmas, the NCC came up with an idea to start an electronic Write Christmas Cards to the Troops Campaign.

(Edit: I SCREWED UP HERE - the Christmas Card thing was the Canadian Coalition for Democracies at www.canadiancoalition.com, not the National Citizens Coalition. Honest mistake, I am sorry for any confusion. That aside, my point about mixing politics into 'support the troops' stands. Please see an explanation/apology five posts down)

Sounds great, what could be more patriotic? Except when you went to the website, you were greeted with a lot of political messages, along the lines of "Paul Martin is a crook and should be thrown out ..." etc. (Not an exact quote, just going from memory)
Nice. You wanted to write to a soldier, and BAM! here's some really partisan political messages thrown right at you.
SURPRISE!

Whether you agree or disagree with their politics is immaterial. What is an issue, in my opinion, is that the military remain apolitical. The NCC doesn't respect that boundary, I feel.

These ribbons look almost exactly like the MFRC ribbons, except for the colour.
So, sweet Aunt Gertie wants to do some good for the soldiers. She thinks that this is the place to get 'the ribbons' as they look almost exactly like the ones put out by the MFRC.
And who can argue with giving money to the families of the deceased? That in itself is a noble thing.

But in comes the bait and switch. You go to the website's home page, which along with the 'buy a ribbon page' also has the 'become a member' page the 'learn more about the NCC' etc. etc.
The NCC is not a political party, but they have an overt political agenda. The subtle message? Want to support our troops? Vote the way we want you to vote.
The fact that they put 'www.morefreedom.org' on the magnet is exactly what they tried to do at Christmas - co-opt patriotic feeling into their political movement.

That is an enormous difference from a radio station or a car dealership putting up a billboard or giving a military discount.
They are deliberately (in my judgement) trying to bait and switch patriotic people into associating the military with their politics.
They are doing so by taking a recognized symbol associated with the MFRC and piggybacking their agenda onto it.

I could go on and on why it's important for the CF not to affiliate with a political group, but my post is already pretty long.

Bottom line: the NCC isn't doing this purely out of the good of their hearts. The fact that they put the website on the ribbon speaks volumes. They are trying to make it appear that the CF and the NCC are somehow intertwined, and that irks me. 
It irks me greatly. Very banana republic.

Just so I'm clear, if they wanted to set up a charity, fine, but keep it completely separate from any of their politics. Or better yet, advocate for an already existing organization that helps soldiers and their families. I appreciate community support, but I despise public goodwill for the military being siphoned off by drum-beaters with their own agenda.

 

[Centurian1985]

Whether you agree or disagree with their politics is immaterial. What is an issue, in my opinion, is that the military remain apolitical. The NCC doesn't respect that boundary, I feel.
But in comes the bait and switch. You go to the website's home page, which along with the 'buy a ribbon page' also has the 'become a member' page the 'learn more about the NCC' etc. etc.
The NCC is not a political party, but they have an overt political agenda. The subtle message? Want to support our troops? Vote the way we want you to vote.
The fact that they put 'www.morefreedom.org' on the magnet is exactly what they tried to do at Christmas - co-opt patriotic feeling into their political movement.

To be blunt, I often find probum non poenitet a bit over the top with his comments in some areas.  However, in this case I am in complete agreement.  I am very suspicious of an organization that outlines its political stance on issues while attracting visitors by advocating supporting CF troops - a typical 'bait and switch' propoganda game.

What concerns me are the advertisements for brochures and other political materials.  While it is accepted practice for non-profit orgs to divert donations to support their organizational operations (one unnamed non-profit org diverts 97 cents out of every dollar towards its own organization operations costs), it is unknown what percentage of the money is actually being set aside for teh benfit of CF members and how much is being diverted to producing political materials.

I am especially suspicious as there is no message saying what the funds will be used for, nor is there a mission statement for the fund, nor a clear objective for use of funds, nor any form of public awarenes of how CF members may benefit from the fund, and I am especially concerned over the lack of public access to information about their President or any Board Members.   

 

[probum non poenitet]

To be blunt, I often find probum non poenitet a bit over the top with his comments in some areas.

Fair criticism-- some of the other threads I'm just throwing my oddly-shaped hat in the ring. And often without coffee, which is dangerous. I do go over the top, because that's my sense of humour.
And lack of knowledge, to be blunt.
And intelligence.
I'll stop now.

There so many excellent posters out here, and very knowledgeable folks; I do have much respect for the collective knowledge-base here.
If my comments sometimes seem 'too much,' I mean no harm. It's just fun mixing it up.

However, on this thread, I'm taking a pretty hard stand, and use some pretty strong language - and I do stand by it. It's not the incident itself that bothers me so much as the precedent it sets.

Cheers

 

[TMM]

Some excellent points above. I must add that people often confuse "not for profit" with "charity." Please keep in mind that they are not one and the same. I venture people would give money to an org thinking it a charity when it is NFP.

 

[Centurian1985]

Fair criticism-- some of the other threads I'm just throwing my oddly-shaped hat in the ring. And often without coffee, which is dangerous. I do go over the top, because that's my sense of humour.
And lack of knowledge, to be blunt.
And intelligence.
I'll stop now.

There so many excellent posters out here, and very knowledgeable folks; I do have much respect for the collective knowledge-base here.
If my comments sometimes seem 'too much,' I mean no harm. It's just fun mixing it up.

However, on this thread, I'm taking a pretty hard stand, and use some pretty strong language - and I do stand by it. It's not the incident itself that bothers me so much as the precedent it sets.

I'll clarify - when I say over the top, I dont think you are 'too much', I mean you come across with strong statements but with humour and conviction.  Not criticising you, only pointing out that we usually come at a question from two different directions, but we agree on this topic.  'Opinions make for strange alliances' as it were...