Canadian Magazine Case

Canadian Magazines

1) To what extent do you think the U.S.-Canadian magazine dispute was motivated by genuine desires to protect Canadian culture?

In determining if the Canadian government was acting to genuinely to protect culture, it is important to be clear on what culture is. The dictionary definition of culture is the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time. (Merriam-Webster) The question must be, then, to what tangible merit does acting to preserve a culture give a government? As far as the interests of the Canadian government go, how does defending Canadian culture further its interests as compared to defending the economic impact of foreign influences? While culture changes have an impact

If culture stands as it is defined, as the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time, then one must ask when it is appropriate for a government to control beliefs, customs and arts. To control such things is in direct violation of natural rights, and has been a pattern of the most totalitarian governments of all time.

2) To what extent do you think the government of Canada was pressured to seek to protect its market because of the financial interests of the Canadian magazine industry?

Much research can be put into the practices of the Canadian Government, to determine the level of lobbying and other influence that business has on Governmental decisions in Canada. For brevity, it can be stated that such practices likely had a bearing on the Canadian Government. Internal metrics, such as revenue, employment, GDP and other economic factors that are closely tracked by governments are also a factor, if not the prime motivation for governments to act. Based on these factors, as well as the breach of ethics of defending “culture” as discussed above, it may be argued that the government was mainly if not wholly pressured to protect the market on financial

The question of agreement can be given by an appeal to natural rights. Are people’s rights being taken away by the hunting of non-endangered whales? Sitting alone in nature, it can be argued that one has a right to nature. By such logic, and the fact that overfishing is a serious issue, weather endangerment is or is not a factor, wale hunting should not be allowed.

2) Do you think the whaling ban constitutes a violation of these nations ' sovereignty?

The question, again, should be, are these nations taking way the natural rights of others? If wale hunting does take away the natural rights of others, a ban does not violate sovereignty, but rather protects the rights of others (and the rights of the Whales).

3) How should these kinds of questions about cultural exemptions be settled? Should an international panel (such as a committee at the WTO) be asked to weigh the validity of such claims? Who should serve on such a