Evening Star

See, I'm not convinced of the truth of this (and I'm not really buying that scientists belong to an elitist Central Canadian clique who have an inherent bias against Westerners). It's not what the scientists are saying.

I wasn't blaming Harper for this situation at all. It seems to be an Environment Canada decision. But the rules have been linked here and it's not clear that this guy did break them.

Why not? That sounds democratic. Don't e.g. public service unions do this all the time? The PBO? Auditor General?

What do you think of this? Do you agree that this is how public servants should be treated if they speak out against the sitting government?

Cybercoma, is your point that limitless economic growth is environmentally unsustainable and so we should focus more on making sure that wealth is divided more equally such that the poor are still doing OK instead of trying to make everyone richer (even if the rich are getting richer at a much faster rate)?

He was planning to retire in a month, according to the CBC article.

You see the differences? i) You are talking about "not getting promoted eventually" vs "being put on leave". ii) The song does not really concern specific "work-related concerns", except in the general sense of criticizing government science policy alongside other policies and governing attitudes of the government. Edit: Teachers have been badmouthing Premiers for as long as I can remember. When I was a student, they sure as hell did it to Bob Rae (even during class time) as much as they did it to Mike Harris.

This seems different to me. You worked for the school board and were considering writing a public letter about the superintendent of that board (i.e. someone who was directly involved in supervising you), presumably about something related to your job? What would have happened if you had written a letter about the policies and governing style of the sitting Premier at the time? Don't tell me school board employees have never done this.

OK, well, we agree there.

Yes, it is very different: he works for the public, not for the sitting government or governing party. His salary is paid from tax dollars, not from private profits that Harper has earned. He was not badmouthing Environment Canada; he was badmouthing the sitting PM. This is not comparable to e.g. an Apple employee who tells people to buy PCs instead.

Yes, and it has been happening quite a lot over the last few years. And citizens reserve the right to criticize, protest, file complaints, or vote for someone else. Either way, this does not mean that public servants can lose their jobs for displeasing the sitting government without getting a reason, nor that Harper is the boss of any academic who gets public funding. I'm not sure what else you are implying by saying "If the government funds something, it can pull funding. They usually don't even need a reason" in the context of this discussion?

Um, yes, I do think governments need to give reasons for funding or not funding things. They are not private businesses that can just spend their own money as they see fit.

Basically, from Reefer's link, these seem like the relevant points: If this scientist does not work for one of the organizations described in 1. or 2., then it is just a matter of whether this action impairs his ability to do his job in a politically impartial manner; I'm sceptical that it does. about 4xposts

He's a public servant, i.e. a servant of the public, not a servant of the PM or governing party. This is an essential distinction in a liberal democracy. If you want to argue that his action hampers a need for a public servant to be politically impartial, that's a reasonable point that is worth discussing. It is very dangerous, however, if people are going to start arguing that public servants need to maintain some kind of political loyalty to the government of the day because the PM is their boss.

That's exactly what you said: But while you are on the topic: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid "I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain." I've done plenty of 'adjunct' (usually called "sessional" in Canada) teaching and, yes, your situation is quite precarious and is often unfortunately dependent on student evaluations. However, I do not think that the content of this article supports its title. Much of it relies on vague anecdotes such as the one that you quote. Also, someone who was offended by Edward Said was quite likely a conservative student, rather than a liberal one. In fact, the only formal complaint that this instructor has had filed against him was by a right-wing student who accused him of being a communist, not by a "liberal student". And what happened to that complaint? "It disappeared forever". A response: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8736591/liberal-professor-identity

Right. I should have said "polls a month or two ahead of the last provincial election".

The Conservatives totally dominated BC in the last three federal elections, actually. But, yeah, polls are suggesting that could change this time. (Polls also suggested that the NDP would win their last provincial election, too, though.)

This is what residency means, is it not?. When I became a resident of SK in 2011, it meant that I lived, i.e. resided, there, not that I was born or raised there or that I had visited there before. If I were not spending most of my time there, I would have to do a bit more to justify identifying that place as my primary residence.

What is this source? It does not seem authoritative at all. I was quoting from Oxford. Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government(You could include Canada in their first broad definition, only insofar as every representative democracy could be included. This part seems common to me: " The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.") International Encyclopedia of Political Science: The point you quote below, on the other hand, is a real problem imo: And, "In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."​ My reference http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body

I thought about it but it seems clear enough to me that Smallc and cybercoma have already identified the problems with your suggestion. There are problems with our system but I think your suggestions would make them worse, not better. What you are describing is a President, not a Prime Minister. This works, insofar as it works, in the US because they have an entirely different system of government with checks and balances built into it that are not present in a Parliamentary system. Without those, the system would be a disaster. And, even then, there are real problems with gridlock in the US system. Also, this is the definition of republic in my dictionary, which would exclude Canada:

Lol, I admire Smallc for having the patience to try to explain basic civics over and over on here.

Forum: NDP 40 LPC 30 CPC 23; NDP leading in Ontario, 41% support in SK/MB, over 50% support in QC. This seems almost unbelievable. We'll need to see what other polls look like.

This would be better, I agree. I think this is what the Greens are proposing when they say they will create a Democratic Voting Commission and "[t]he recommendations of the Commission will be presented as options to Canadian voters."

NDP policy book taken down, to be replaced by a platform based on "financial considerations".

i.e. as if he was a resident of PEI, which is what he was supposed to be in order to represent the province in the Senate