More muzzling?

The harper government™ has released, through Treasury Board,  rules for public servants on use of social media. 

"We’re basically saying it’s ok to dialogue with the public, it’s ok to open up government information, it’s ok to be more productive by sharing information, but there is a framework you are going to have to develop." - clement

But open government advocate David Eaves said the rules don’t jibe with Clement’s message about improving the flow of information.  "This entire document is about improving the control of information," he said.

But while the rules may help persuade managers to let their employees go online, fear of running afoul of policy will make people’s lives more difficult, Eaves said.

Eaves says the new rules will slow communications to a crawl as departments struggle to make sure any messages distributed via the Net will be subject to far too much scrutiny.

Communications

1.      Verify that the planned Web 2.0 initiative is congruent with Government of Canada themes and messages, as well as departmental communications' and consultations' objectives and requirements. Privy Council Office should be engaged early in the process to ensure alignment of Web 2.0 activities with Government of Canada communication and consultation priorities;

As this applies, I believe, to all government departments and agencies, this gives harper that foot into controlling independent agencies’ communications products, something he has been trying to do for some time.  PCO takes an oversight position, here.

Another area of concern is how the new rules address public servants’ private use of social media.

For Professional Networking & Personal Use:

1. Your obligations as outlined in the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service apply at all times, particularly if your employer could be identified through your use of Web 2.0 tools and services.

Simply put, anytime public servants express themselves publicly, they must make it very clear they are speaking as a private citizen, and not on behalf of their department.  However, perception is recognized as playing a part, so even a disclaimer does not protect public servants from speaking if it comes out that they are public servants.  That’s problematic since it would only take exposing the person’s identity and job to give an abusive government an excuse to shut down public servants who are occasionally critical of the elected government.

2. By virtue of your employment, information shared through Web 2.0 tools and services may be perceived as an official Government of Canada position rather than your own opinion. You should therefore clearly state in your account profile that the views expressed are your own and not those of your employer. However, it is important to note that such a disclaimer does not absolve you of your obligations as a public servant, including your duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada… An employee's public commentary (including online activity on blogs and other social media platforms) about an organization, including its minister, is subject to scrutiny under the duty of loyalty requirement.

What are the boundaries of duty and loyalty?  Will public servants be willing to test these under a government that treats any kind of dissent as criminal?  Will they have to be concerned about being spied upon?  Are they now more apprehensive over the changes to online surveillance Toews wants to implement?   

Will public servants place their loyalty to serving the public before heavy-handed policies passed down by a secretive, repressive government?  Is not the first loyalty of public servants to the public?

Only publicly available information may be shared externally, unless you are specifically authorized otherwise. Always check permissions required to reproduce or distribute any information, including Government of Canada content such as illustrations, photographs, videos, audio, logos, trade-marks or wordmarks.

There’s a troubling contradiction there.  While publicly available info can be shared, that right can be over-run by…who?  A Minister?  A Deputy Head?  A manager?  On what basis?  Already, this latest set of rules contrains public servants from using the same resources as any other private citizen.

“Duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada” comes up several times in the rules and seems to override the public servants’ rights as private citizens to express opinions or criticize.

Fulfillment of these obligations is expected at all times as follows:

• Public servants owe a duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada;
• Do no harm to the reputation of your employer;

But what if your employer is acting inappropriately and this has become information available to anyone, such as the case of Clement and the G-20 funds, or political aides interfering with ATIP requests, or the AG reports that expose lack of transparency and waste of funds?  Would criticizing Clement’s actions and lack of accountability be considered a violation of the rules if the public servant posting as a private citizen works for TBS?

There is a single line that offers public servants some small protection against abuse of power by political bosses -

·         public servants shall loyally implement ministerial decisions, lawfully taken.

 

However, that statement is immediately followed by more reinforcement of “duty of loyalty.”

·       

  In  In Canada's system of parliamentary democracy, public servants owe a duty of loyalty to their employer, the Government of Canada. This includes refraining from any activity that could compromise the efforts of Government organizations to deliver on their mandate.

Eaves is right.  These new rules are more to control communications than encourage them, and this extends even to a public servant’s right to express themselves as private citizens.

Meet Steve-no-fucking-class-harper

There's a word for people who act this way.

Justice isn't just blind, she's protean as well.

Others, notably Joe Lieberman in the Senate and Peter King in the House of Representatives have pushed for new legislation to facilitate the prosecution of Mr Assange in the event that existing law proves insufficient. "Assange and his associates... have not only damaged US national security... but also placed at risk countless lives, including those of our intelligence sources," said Mr King.

Sure.  Just make a new law so you can nab this fellow who is exposing your crimes.  Brilliant!  Then change it again for the next case, and the next, and the next.  Justice for all, right?  Tailored justice, that is.

"Apparently wikileaks is malware. Or it is porn."

David Eaves of eaves.ca  has a good post here comparing the Pentagon Papers to Wikileaks.  I unapologetically post most of it here:

While doing this yesterday, something came over my desk that showed me how completely backwards parts of the US government has become around dealing with wikileaks. Turns out that the US Airforce has banned access to the New York Times and the Guardian because of wikileaks. Of course discussions about the leaked documents and their contents are not limited to these websites... one presumes that banning access to the Internet is what comes next?  The Air Force "routinely blocks Air Force network access to websites hosting inappropriate materials or malware (malicious software) and this includes any website that hosts classified materials and those that are released by WikiLeaks," she said.

Apparently wikileaks is malware. Or it is porn.

More importantly, the government is telling its employees to blind themselves. That they should pretend like the information about wikleaks, the leaked documents and how the world is reacting to it - the type of information an organization whose mission it is to engage with allies and a public that care about this a great deal - doesn't exist. If some information is bad... more information must be worse!

The attempt at thought control is all kind of Orwellian. It's also doomed to fail. In the 21st century, information and knowledge is power. Cut yourself off from it and you cut yourself off from your capacity to think and react effectively. In other words the US Airforce has been played. They are doing pretty much what I think wikileaks was trying to accomplish.

1984 is not a how-to manual, Harper

But he sure seems to think it is.

Natural Resources Canada scientists were told this spring they need “pre-approval” from Minister Christian Paradis’ office to speak with national and international journalists. Their “media lines” also need ministerial approval, say documents obtained by Postmedia News through access-to-information legislation.

The documents say the “new” rules went into force in March and reveal how they apply to not only to contentious issues including the oilsands, but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago.

Holy paranoid PM, Batman!

Before any of you wingnuts go on about who cares what happened 13,000 years ago, they why are we paying people to message-manage scientists about that?  And consider also that all messages are being managed and edited.

They also give a glimpse of how Canadians are being cut off from scientists whose work is financed by taxpayers, critics say, and is often of significant public interest — be it about fish stocks, genetically modified crops or mercury pollution in the Athabasca River.

I don’t know about you, but I sure want to know what’s in my food and water.

The control and micro-management points to a high level of “science illiteracy” in the upper ranks of the federal government, (Weaver) says, and “incredible disrespect” for both the researchers and the taxpayers footing the government’s multi-billion-dollar science bill.

“The sad reality is that these guys in Ottawa think federal scientists work for them,” says Weaver. “They don’t, they work for the people of Canada.  This is science funded by Canada for the public good,” he says. “It is not science funded to produce briefing notes for ministers so they can get elected in the next federal campaign.”

Canadians had better wake up and put a stop to this muzzling and editing.  We pay for reports and studies, we should expect and receive the truth.  It isn’t that the government considers us too fragile to handle the truth, it’s that it knows that we will indeed grasp it and expect those we elect to act on the information for our benefit, not theirs.