The shroud of darkness has fallen on parliament hill

[WWWTT]

The media will need great determination and luck now to get any information out of the PMO's office or any ministers expence budgets etc etc.

Harpers shroud of darkness and silence is now complete and his henchmen and himself are free to spend and spend and spend on anything they feel.

Free of critisism,free of scrutiny free of examination.

WWWTT

[Shady]

Is the shroud of darkness similar to the cone of silence?

[Moonlight Graham]

Is the shroud of darkness similar to the cone of silence?

Or the shroud of darkness from "The Neverending Story"?

[RNG]

I assume WWWTT is referring to the SCC ruling that the PM and Cabinet Ministers are not bound by freedom of information regulations.

I think it's a good decision.

And brought down by mostly Liberal appointed justices.

Edited May 14, 2011 by RNG

[ninjandrew]

I liked the Don Adams era cone of silence best.

[RNG]

I liked the Don Adams era cone of silence best.

Cooooooooooooooooooooooool, Dude!

[August1991]

I liked the Don Adams era cone of silence best.

This reminds me of this forum sometimes, or Canadian federal politics in general.

[Scotty]

The media will need great determination and luck now to get any information out of the PMO's office or any ministers expence budgets etc etc.

Harpers shroud of darkness and silence is now complete and his henchmen and himself are free to spend and spend and spend on anything they feel.

Free of critisism,free of scrutiny free of examination.

WWWTT

In all honesty, I'm hoping that now that they feel somewhat more secure the Tories will begin to open up more.

[eyeball]

Oh well, out of sight out of mind as they say. I think this decision in conjunction with yet another overwhelming 'majority' of 40% of Canadians could herald the greatest disengagement of Canadians from politics in history.

Way off in the outliers of coastal BC it's hard to fathom the point of even remaining Canadian.

Edited May 14, 2011 by eyeball

[Keepitsimple]

Oh well, out of sight out of mind as they say. I think this decision in conjunction with yet another overwhelming 'majority' of 40% of Canadians could herald the greatest disengagement of Canadians from politics in history.

Way off in the outliers of coastal BC it's hard to fathom the point of even remaining Canadian.

Not to fear. Elizabeth May has her foot in the door....it's only a mattter of time as the Green Tide washes East. Be patient.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Saipan]

The shroud of darkness has fallen on parliament hill....

for all the pinko spin masters.

Time of more personal freedom's back.

[capricorn]

Free of critisism,free of scrutiny free of examination.

WWWTT

And all the light is shone on the Jack and his NDP.

[Hydraboss]

And all the light is shone on the Jack and his NDP.

I believe we're supposed to use proper names (and not slang) on this board.

So to restate you accurately, it should be

And all the light is shone on the John and his NDP.

...just aiming for accuracy...

[Saipan]

Jack Layton is the leader of NDP.

[Hydraboss]

Jack Layton is the leader of NDP.

No...JOHN Layton is the leader of the NDP.

Just ask the Toronto cops.

[kimmy]

The media will need great determination and luck now to get any information out of the PMO's office or any ministers expence budgets etc etc.

Harpers shroud of darkness and silence is now complete and his henchmen and himself are free to spend and spend and spend on anything they feel.

Free of critisism,free of scrutiny free of examination.

WWWTT

In the interest of accuracy, it should be pointed out that this was a decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada, not by Stephen Harper or Parliament.

It should also be pointed out that this case has been in the works for 10 years, as a result of attempts to get notes from Secret PMO Meetings held by Jean Chretien.

Spinning it like this is something that happened because Harper won a majority 2 weeks ago is just plain dishonest.

-k

[Jim Lahey]

Ahahaha, I used to be bothered by anti-Harper alarmists, but now that his next 4 years in power are a lock and I don't think he'll run for re-election, it's hilarious to me.

I'm all for freedom of information to a certain extent, but I get Harper's train of thought. No matter what he does, says, or spends, the media is automatically going to ride him for it and make him look like a bad guy. I think he decided that he wasn't going to play the media's game, which is basically like playing Jumanji in the sense that no matter what he rolls or where he lands, he's going to be in trouble.

What's everyone so scared of, anyways? Another sponsorship scandal? Buying expensive fountains?

Call me jaded, but I think all politicians, especially the ones up here, are going to be corrupt to some extent. As long as there aren't any major issues with serious implications and repercussions, all this stuff should be taken with a grain of salt.

[WWWTT]

In the interest of accuracy, it should be pointed out that this was a decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada, not by Stephen Harper or Parliament.

It should also be pointed out that this case has been in the works for 10 years, as a result of attempts to get notes from Secret PMO Meetings held by Jean Chretien.

Spinning it like this is something that happened because Harper won a majority 2 weeks ago is just plain dishonest.

Did Harper try to stop this?

Did he come out and say he will disregard this ruling and open the books?

Or will he just keep quiet and hope it passes?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

No...JOHN Layton is the leader of the NDP.

Just ask the Toronto cops.

Actually since he was not charged and convicted you may be sued for libel or slander so tread carefully.

If any newspaper or radio or tv station(publication) made such a comment they deffinetely would be!

WWWTT

[Saipan]

Actually since he was not charged and convicted you may be sued for libel or slander so tread carefully.

Does that apply to Mulroney?

[RNG]

Does that apply to Mulroney?

Yes it does in that IIRC, he threatened a suit and got a large settlement from the government.

[PIK]

Did Harper try to stop this?

Did he come out and say he will disregard this ruling and open the books?

Or will he just keep quiet and hope it passes?

WWWTT

And why would he, or any other PM. Somethings needs to be kept quiet.You need to be able to say things in PRIVATE without it showing up in the press ,where everything is taken out of context. The media onslaught in the next 4 years will be brutal. Liberals make very poor losers.

[kimmy]

Did Harper try to stop this?

Are you suggesting the Prime Minister has the power to interfere with the Supreme Court?

Did he come out and say he will disregard this ruling and open the books?

The books are open. This ruling is in regard to meetings, not departmental budgets. Your claim that the PM and cabinet ministers are now free to spend and spend is ridiculous. Their expenses will continue to be audited by the Auditor General's department, as they always have.

This ruling means that we as the public don't have the right to be a fly on the wall every time members of the government meet in private. Personally, I'm in favor. I want our elected officials to be able to sit and discuss issues with complete candor without fear of some comment being turned into a soundbite that will be used against them regardless of whether it's true or accurate.

When I lived in Ottawa, my next door neighbor was a policy analyst with the Liberal Party. We would often chat, usually about trivial things, but sometimes about political issues. When he talked about issues like Quebec separation or foreign policy, he had a conviction of belief that was inspiring, and he sometimes said things that you'd never read in the newspaper from any politician. And personally, it gave me confidence to know that behind the mush-mouth bland platitudes of the Liberal Party, there were people like my neighbor who had intense and passionate beliefs about our country. And yet, had things he told me in private been said in public with a newspaper reporter nearby, they'd have probably have caused some form of uproar and forced some sort of namby-pamby statement of clarification.

-k

[Saipan]

Yes it does in that IIRC, he threatened a suit and got a large settlement from the government.

Whole different story. he didn't sue individuals talking about him. In fact not even someone writing a book about him, because Mulroney KNOW he's a PUBLIC figure and so a fair game.

[RNG]

Whole different story. he didn't sue individuals talking about him. In fact not even someone writing a book about him, because Mulroney KNOW he's a PUBLIC figure and so a fair game.

That is an interesting point of law I wasn't aware of. This appears not to be true in the US, given some suits I am aware of. Any legal types out there that can expound on this?