Deb says:
…while I wanted to actually mention Harper and the Conservatives, I agree with Chears that that would probably be hard to get submitted.
So I made the ad as generic as I could while still getting the gist. At least I hope so.
The layout is like the one Chears ran and is intended as a starting point. Input from everyone is welcome and appreciated.
There is other advertisement discussion at https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/03/28/breaking-news-tories-hide-fatca-law-in-budget-act/comment-page-2/#comment-1318170.
(Note: I’m just putting this in one place in case people want to discuss options of what they’d like to do. I am not the coordinator for this effort, just the poster.)
Deb’s NEW VERSIONS:
[ Click on image for larger / clearer look. ]
****************************************
REPLACEMENT OF FINAL VERSION of ad from Chears:
Newer ad from Chears, the first being the “final” / the final FINAL above:
Original ad from Chears:
@Deb – I think that you mean “aren’t supposed to know” versus “aren’t suppose to know”.
Otherwise … I love it …. If I wanted one with Jamaica instead of Canada to try to put into the newspaper here would that be possible?
I like it! The bold, black, ominous FATCA lettering with classified stamp is a good touch. The IGA was negotiated in secret; the enabling legislation has been introduced by stealth, well hidden in a omnibus bill; the IGA negotiators and the enabling legislation creators are largely under wraps; and finally — Flaherty farted, then departed. We have only just begun to expose the FATCA monster to Canadians and when we do, knowing FATCA will NOT be loving FATCA.
@Deb … and of course substituting Jamaicans for Canadians. BTW could the American, Jamaicans and Jamaica words be bolder than those around them to highlight the difference.
Thanks for the catch nervousinvestor! Fixed. And of course.
From WhiteKat:
https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/03/28/breaking-news-tories-hide-fatca-law-in-budget-act/comment-page-5/#comment-1324371
@Deb, I hear you. I would suggest trying to get that this is about CANADIAN somehow in the wording. Once people think it is about Americans they move on quickly.
Perhaps consider this:
“An American law demanding Canadians’ private financial information be sent to the IRS”
@WhiteKat,
I thought – …will come into effect in Canada… accomplished that. Would it help if I put Canada in bold?
How about:
Effective July 1, 2014, new law will demand private financial information of some Canadians be sent to the U.S. IRS.
as it will be both Canadian and U.S. law — and presumably we want people to bring their concerns to their Canadian government representatives.
or
Starting July 1st, new law will demand …
@nervousinvestor,
I’ll make those changes later this afternoon. You’ll need a press quality pdf.
@Calgary 411,
Ok to send a pdf to you for nervousinvestor?
It would have to have a definite headline post which is directly related to the add. Brock is a running site of interesting articles and comments, not a choreographed place.
Deb,
Sure. Will the pdf be able to be revised by nervousinvestor (or anyone else) to suit need?
@ All
Deb made this easy for anyone with photoshop to recreate and modify for another country. The “classified” stamp can probably be found as free clip art if you search for it.
@Calgary411,
I’m going to make the changes for nervousinvestor. Should anyone else be interested I can make the requested changes or send an original Adobe Illustrator file. I’d need to know what version though.
And I guess I’m a tad more possessive of those few words than I thought. Because they don’t just say something, they are part of the design. People scan first, read later. If you read just the underlined (most will) words I want to outrage and interest you. I want the reaction to be: WTF? What? How’s that possible??. Then you read all of words and they send you to IBS. The words need to be where they are in order for that to work.
But again, I am to please. : )
I agree Deb. And for Canadians, more so than other countries, that date JULY 1 is significant. It’s a WTF, they are going to do that to us on Canada’s birthday! (Sorry, I pick up bad words on the internets.)
…aim to please. : )
Em lol!
Just got a suggestion from Native Canadian to use these words…
An American law that demands
Canadians pay the US taxman
will come into effect in Canada on July 1
@ Deb
Oh, not so sure about that wording. The law is not about paying the Uncle Sam Snake Piper. It’s about bypassing privacy rights.
Not trying to be difficult ( 🙂 ) but I think it’s great as-is (except for the “suppose” thing of course). I do believe “American” right at the top will be more effective than “US” somewhere down below. Canadians don’t like thought of American anything getting into their stuff. Also very good not to make it about taxes. Finally, as a totally biased non-Canadian citizen, I vote for the use of “Canada “instead of “Canadian”. Cheers –
Well done! At least we have a start to get the word out.
Thanks for this.
@ Wren
I agree. My previous comment was about Native Canadian’s modification (good input but it’s all about privacy, IMHO). “As Is” gets my vote, FWIW.
I LOVE Atticus’s suggestion for wording! That will make you want to check out isaacbrocksociety!
I think I’ll make one and put in on my pages everywhere online and then maybe go local with it. People here hate Americas wars and they are in debt for two things. WARS and bailing out criminal bankers.
“American law demands Canadians bail out U.S. war debts” #FATCA
“American law demands Canadians pay for banker bail outs” #FATCA
The bail outs were even mentioned by the U.S. negotiators at the table when discussing FATCA with Canada…in fact they were mentioned almost right off the bat.
Oh, here I go rethinking. Maybe it could be “… to find out what ALL Canadians need to know” instead of “… to find out what Canadians aren’t suppose to know”. Only because I’m a bit hung up on “suppose”. I’m generally loosey-goosey about language usage but sometimes I get tripped up with correctness.
http://www.englishforums.com/English/SupposeVersusSupposed/xxvn/post.htm
@Deb re: “I thought – …will come into effect in Canada… accomplished that. Would it help if I put Canada in bold? ”
In my opinion, no. Even though the law will be in effect in Canada, Canadians are still going to assume it only applies to ‘Americans’ who happen to live in Canada. The wording should make clear this distinction to have the effect you want. And Canadians don’t care much about ‘Americans’ who live in Canada.
@ WhiteKat
The original says “American law” not “Americans” and I do think Canadians would be concerned about that. I agree that generally Canadians don’t care too much about Americans living in Canada but foisting an American law on us is something else.
@WhiteKat
What Em said. There’s nothing in the text that implies this is about Americans. It says that something American is being foisted on Canada. Canadians are very sensitive about this. Deb’s reasoning for choosing the wording holds up very well IMO.