Bank of Canada kills editorial cartoon, calls it "counterfeiting"


15 Responses to “Bank of Canada kills editorial cartoon, calls it "counterfeiting"”

  1. Boundegar says:

    One wonders what the bank would have done had the bill featured a Liberal senator.

  2. kiptw says:

    Looney politics.

  3. liquidself says:

    I thought Duffy was actually gifted that money, and apparently borrowed it from a bank as well?  Anyways, aside from playing totalitarian oppressor,  the not so subtle message is ‘we control and own all Canadian money’;  so any visual manipulation using actual currency is seen as an egregious affront by the bank.  They may yet regret showing their (invisible?) hand here, banks are usually expert in the use of lackeys, surprising. Worst of all of course is those newspapers knuckling under;  surely no court in the land would support this case.  Sometimes I think we as Canadians truly are too polite for our own good.

    • Humbabella says:

      The linked article shows that the paper is being polite but is not backing down.  They have sent a response asking what specifically the problem is.

      • I suspect “irritation radiating from the posterior.”

      • liquidself says:

         ah,  well that is really good to see.

      • scav says:

        And that would be a reasonable response were it a question of civil liability. I think the proper response to bogus threats of untenable and even frivolous *criminal* complaints is “come at me bro”.  There is a higher bar to get over and a more serious downside for the aggressor in such a situation.

        IANAL, so don’t take my word for it however.

        • Humbabella says:

          The flip side of that is that when the government is coming after you they have a lot more power than a private enterprise.

  4. There’s no plausible case for forgery and the BoC knows it. From the the Criminal Code:

    366. (1) Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with intent(a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice of any one whether within Canada or not; or(b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or not.

    Dear BoC: please explain how you can demonstrate intent to satisfy either of those two criteria. 

    Dear Newspapers: don’t give in to such feeble attempts. The threat is pathetic, but caving-in to such a threat is even more pathetic.

  5. et50 says:

    Tell the Bank of Canada what you think about this:


  6. bentrafford says:

    I’d say it’s pretty clear these orders came from Dear Leader himself. The Harper gov’t has no issues  with using civil servants to do their dirty work.

  7. doctorpi says:

    A small correction to your headline. The bank did not call this counterfeiting. It called it a “copyright violation”.

    • I would point out that the letter’s author opens with this paragraph:

      “My name is Sophie Jenkins and I am a senior analyst with the Bank of Canada’s anti-counterfeiting compliance program.”

      She goes on to say:

      “Please be advised that the reproduction of bank note images is protected by the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act.”

      The signature block of her letter only identifies her as:

      “Senior Analyst” / “Compliance”

      If her position’s title is no more specific than “Senior Analyst – Compliance”, why did she include anti-counterfeiting in the introduction? What was the intent?

Leave a Reply