Those damn Liberal public servants!

Taking time away from their cushy, well paid jobs to attend a partisan farewell party!  That’s the Liberals for you.
 

Oh...wait...

The farewell, which nearly 200 communication personnel from various departments were forced to attend was for...Dimitri Soudas?

What?  Couldn’t he Facebook enough of his own friends to attend voluntarily?

The article is in French,

but the gist of it is –

nearly 200 high level public servants were forced to go to a farewell party for Soudas.  They were lead to believe that the “meeting”  had to do with communications in the federal government.  Many thought it would have to do with cuts to departments.

The order of the day was not specified and the notice was sent by the PCO to high level communication managers in all ministries, assistant deputy ministers, and DGs.  Each invitee could bring up to five senior members of their team.

The meeting consisted of what has been described as a completely useless, very general talk given by Jonathan Massey-Smith, head of PCO Comm. Half way through the meeting, Massey-Smith and his assistant delivered a long eulogy on Soudas and gave him a gift.  Then, further torture ensued as the captive audience had to endure another lengthy speech, this time given by Soudas.

Apparently, the invitees could not leave the farewell bit because i twas part of the whole meeting.  Some public servants wanted to leave, feeling uncomfortable because of the way they were forced to attend an obviously partisan event, but didn’t dare.

 
Donald Savoie, author of several books on public administration said it’s the first time he has heard of this being done, adding that while it is essential that public servants work with political employees, neutrality in the public service must be preserved.  It must remain non-partisan by keeping the lines between politics and public service very distinct.  By not informing the public servants what the event involved was, Savoie said, brazen.

No kidding.  It removed the public servants’ right – and responsibility – to decide it this is a function they should attend, and whether or not it crossed that neutrality line they must maintain.

Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism

That diarrhea dispenser Soudas, while in Copenhagen trying to control what Canadians hear, falsely accused Steven Guilbeault, a climate change activist of perpetrating a hoax that embarrassed the Canadian government. When the truth came out, not only did Soudas refuse to apologize to Guilbeault -

Guilbeault said he is also off ended because the Canadian government accused him of being unpatriotic, due to his criticism of its policies. "It's scandalous," said Guilbeault. "It seems like we've lost freedom of speech in Canada."

I’m going to exercise my swiftly eroding right to free speech, now. Anyone who still supports this Harper...regime is either complicit in its corruption, or is a complete fucking idiot.

I’m not saying this of all conservatives, but I am saying it of anyone who supports Steve Harper and his lackeys. If you can sit back and still support that Prop Minister after this comment by Soudas, then not only are you an absolute moron, but you are unpatriotic as well.


No!!!!! We support the TROOPS! you may be screaming. We support our GOVURMENT!!!! Unlike you leftie-commie-pinko-soc’lists who bash 'em!

Well, let’s look at that.

Patriotic: Inspired by patriotism; actuated by love of one's country; zealously and unselfishly devoted to the service of one's country; as, a patriotic statesman, vigilant.

Notice the definition says country, not government. It also includes vigilance as an act of patriotism.

Our democratic system relies on our ability to question, debate, and criticize. That is why there is more than one political party - to represent the differing views, ideologies, and needs of Canadians. So - now listen carefully, I know this is very difficult for some of you - when elected members criticize or question the ruling party, they are helping to make sure that all Canadians have a voice and get to apply the power of that voice in shaping their own country. It is not unpatriotic, it’s their job, their responsibility.

Democracy also relies on individuals’ rights to voice their concerns directly. How else will the government know what they want, and since the government constantly tells us it is working for our welfare, then they need to hear what affects that welfare, and how.

But-but-but- (adscam?)

Hold your tongue and sit down.  I’m not done.

Those of you who say that criticizing the government is unpatriotic, were you unpatriotic when you criticized the Liberals when they were in power, or did you just take a sabbatical from patriotism? See how it works? You love your country, you say, and that’s why you beat on those damn Liberals and Dippers, even when they are in power. And somehow, that’s patriotic. But anyone criticizing Harper and Co. is unpatriotic because he’s in power.

So, you are all fucking idiots.

You are also unpatriotic, because you place a political party above love of country.

You are unpatriotic as well because you are not vigilant: carefully observant or attentive; on the lookout for possible danger; "a policy of open-eyed awareness"

A patriotic person is vigilant, and a vigilant person questions, examines, takes active part in “a policy of open-eyed awareness.”

Many hesitate to question any actions even remotely related to the military, because they fear questioning implies criticism and how can we criticize people who put their lives on the line for their country? I get that. I believe that avoiding questioning in such case is very wrong, but I get it, I understand the unspoken taboo. We are fortunate that our military is a decent enough one, overwhelmingly made up of decent people, I’d say (although there is the odd lying sack of shit) All the more reason to be vigilant, to make sure it is accountable to the country, not to the governing party. There are many examples in history and around the world today of what can happen when a military body serves the government rather than the country and we have only to look at the mess the RCMP finds itself in to understand what happens when we allow agencies to self-regulate and dodge questions from impartial, public panels.

So while I understand why it is difficult for some people to question or criticize anything possibly connected to the military, this accusation by Soudas against Guilbeault is a different beast. Politicians in power do not risk their lives for their country. In fact, they are paid quite well to serve and represent us. That means they should damn well listen to our concerns.

Harper has it backwards, and most of you who follow him do as well. Steve thinks it’s his job to change Canada and Canadians, make them act as he thinks they should, get them to serve who he believes they should serve. A Prime Minister should lead Parliament and make it work for the will of the people. The government should bend to our will, not us to theirs.

A final word on patriotism -
Love of one’s country: we should want it to be healthy. We should want it to function well. We should want it to grow, and to be something we can be proud of. That means paying attention, having the courage to criticize if needed, getting off our lazy butts and learning how our government works, what it’s up to, and whether or not it’s being straight with us.

Hey! Fellow Canadians!

This concerns all of you.

Federal officials assured the Red Cross in 2006 that Canada would take an active role in monitoring the fate of Afghan prisoners - but for critical months behind the scenes did little more than manage the political spin, secret memos show.

The records, examined on a confidential basis by The Canadian Press, show the Harper government placed a greater emphasis on drafting "key messages" to the public and preparing "approaches" for embarrassing disclosures than on dealing with the human rights of prisoners.

(...)No. 1 on the eight-point plan for officials was to "Prepare standard key messages (ie. importance of adhering to obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law regarding the treatment of detainees.)"

Point No. 8 in the plan was to "consider supplementing the existing arrangement" in such a way to include the "guarantee of access for Canadian authorities to individuals transferred by the (Canadian Forces)."
h/t to Impolitical for that story.

This speaks of a broad problem with this government, so even if you somehow convince yourself that sure, torture is bad, hmm-kay...but the detainee issue is different because it’s just anout them thar terr’ists who throw acid in the faces of little girl, drafting key messages to avoid embarrassment or accountability is always the priority of Steve & Co.

What if there was, say, a dangerous, deadly bacteria in a common food source?  Do you want to take the chance that this government might place spin above the health and safety of Canadians?  Could Harper go that far?...Oh...right -

The news agency reported that Ritz fretted about the political dangers of the crisis, and then quipped: "This is like a death by a thousand cuts. Or should I say cold cuts." 

The handling of something as serious as torture and Canada violating the Geneva conventions shows what lengths this government will go to in order to protect the false image it constantly promotes.

A respected former diplomat was aghast that "developing the spin" would take priority over dealing with an issue as urgent as possible torture.  "This is one of those situations where - once again - presentation has taken the place of substance," said Louis Delvoie, Canada's former high commissioner to Pakistan.

And this applies to any situation, even those affecting those Canadians who don’t give a damn about what happens beyond our borders -

"It's a rather sad commentary on what is taking place. You (should) deal with the substance of an issue and then you develop the communications plan as a separate and subsequent item to explain how you're doing it and what you're doing."

A bonus bit on those precious troops Harper and Baird are so concerned about -

Errol Mendes, a human-rights law expert, said the paper trail demonstrates that the Harper government viewed the war as a political exercise, where image-branding trumped policy.  "Throughout all of this the military has been used as a political prop and that is dangerous," he said.  "Governments come and go but the military as an institution remains and the damage this kind of approach can leave is severe."

We are likely to see more of this message massaging and crafting, paid for by...us.

Taxpayers are being asked to pay an extra $1.7-million this fiscal year to help bolster Stephen Harper's communications support services – just as the Prime Minister's Office begins distributing government videos of Harper to the news media.  Supplementary estimates tabled last month by the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's bureaucratic back office, boosted internal operational spending by almost $7.3-million for 2009-10. That's on top of existing budgets.

Oh great!  More of this nonsense, but costlier.

In the last two weeks, the PCO started sending news organizations links to new videos in the same way the PMO has routinely distributed photos shot by Mr. Harper's official photographer.

Besides being a ridiculous expense to taxpayers (just so Steve can pretend to be a real PM), this push to produce his own media outlet over which he has complete control threatens impartial journalism:

The photos, and now the videos, have sparked a debate over media access and when the use of government-produced and approved images may be appropriate in an independent news media.

“It's not access,” said Chris Waddell, who holds the Carty chair in business and financial journalism at Ottawa's Carleton University.  “Access is an opportunity to ask questions and an opportunity to engage in independent work according to journalistic principles. What they're giving you is public relations.”

To which Mr. Message himself answers:

“The media can't have it both ways,” Mr. Soudas recently told CBC.  “They can't criticize us for not providing enough information, and then criticize us for providing too much information.”

Well, yes we can, Dimitri.  Yes we can.  The info you provide through PMO releases is stilted, incomplete, and allows no avenue for challenge or questioning. 

It gives the illusion that Canadians are being kept up-to-date on what the government is doing, what studies have uncovered, what goals and plans are, how our money is spent.  But it is only the illusion that Harper wants us to buy into.

It’s like relying solely on the testimony of a pathological liar when that same liar is the one on trial.

update:  The Imp tells us to just say no.