Why is the PMO playing politics?

[cybercoma]

The PMO has no right to condemn Canadians or paint them as "adversaries" when they stand up for a cause like the environment. This wouldn't be an issue if it came from the CPC themselves; however, the PMO should never be used for political attacks. In a free and just society, people ought to be able to trust that their government will protect their ability to speak their minds and protest public policy when they disagree. Harper's Conservatives continue to undermine our institutions.

"Orwellian times for Canada" by Elizabeth May

Edited April 20, 2012 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

In a free and just society, people ought to be able to trust that their government will protect their ability to speak their minds and protest public policy when they disagree.

I don't see where there's been any threat to remove anyone's free speech rights. However, you seem to be asking for the impossible: an apolitical cabinet. The Crown, the courts, and our military are nonparisan elements of our system of governance; the Cabinet and the parliament to which the ministers of the Crown in Cabinet are responsible are not.

[ed.: +]

Edited April 20, 2012 by g_bambino

[Tilter]

The PMO has no right to condemn Canadians or paint them as "adversaries" when they stand up for a cause like the environment. This wouldn't be an issue if it came from the CPC themselves; however, the PMO should never be used for political attacks. In a free and just society, people ought to be able to trust that their government will protect their ability to speak their minds and protest public policy when they disagree. Harper's Conservatives continue to undermine our institutions.

"Orwellian times for Canada" by Elizabeth May

Gee--- whooda thot that E. May would have a criticism about the PMO.

[cybercoma]

I don't see where there's been any threat to remove anyone's free speech rights. However, you seem to be asking for the impossible: an apolitical cabinet. The Crown, the courts, and our military are nonparisan elements of our system of governance; the Cabinet and the parliament to which the ministers of the Crown in Cabinet are responsible are not.

[ed.: +]

Regardless, the government should not attack citizens and citizen groups. If the Conservative Party wants to, they can, and I would expect it. The PMO should not be taking on that role.

[CPCFTW]

Regardless, the government should not attack citizens and citizen groups. If the Conservative Party wants to, they can, and I would expect it. The PMO should not be taking on that role.

Why not? What if the PMO condemned Canadians who supported slavery? Would you say they have no right to paint them as adversaries? Just because you and Elizabeth May believe in putting people out of work to save some trees and turtles, doesn't mean the government can't condemn it.

[Topaz]

Since both, the PM and the environmentalist are VERY passionate about their views, I wonder what the PM will do if it becomes physical and violent, will HE attack his own citizens? This could get very interesting once the pipelines start to be laid.

[punked]

Why not? What if the PMO condemned Canadians who supported slavery? Would you say they have no right to paint them as adversaries? Just because you and Elizabeth May believe in putting people out of work to save some trees and turtles, doesn't mean the government can't condemn it.

The conservatives are the ones always going after hate speech and talking about the freedom to say what they want. This is just more flip flopping throwing the conservatives ideals and base under the bus. I can not believe the same people who posted here 3 years ago as Conservatives still support this government.

[fellowtraveller]

The most surprising thing is that Elizabeth May gets first screen space and a byline on Rabble.ca.

I thought that was reserved for the most hardcore NDPers.

Is Liz about to cross the floor?

[Shady]

This thread is classic Harper Derangement Syndrome!

[Guest Derek L]

I fail to see the problem that Ms. May is addressing……..She claims that fear of loss of charitable status will negatively effect free speech, but on the other hand, she mentions ForestEthics, a group not seeking charitable status and how effective it is against the Harper Government………Clearly then, the tact that ForestEthics is taking, is the more viable approach…… What's the problem?

[huh]

I fail to see the problem that Ms. May is addressing……..She claims that fear of loss of charitable status will negatively effect free speech, but on the other hand, she mentions ForestEthics, a group not seeking charitable status and how effective it is against the Harper Government………Clearly then, the tact that ForestEthics is taking, is the more viable approach…… What's the problem?

The problem is that Liz may is an idiot that sane people don't give much credit to.

[jacee]

I fail to see the problem that Ms. May is addressing……..She claims that fear of loss of charitable status will negatively effect free speech, but on the other hand, she mentions ForestEthics, a group not seeking charitable status and how effective it is against the Harper Government………Clearly then, the tact that ForestEthics is taking, is the more viable approach…… What's the problem?

Forest Ethics and other such nonprofit groups are allowed 10% advocacy work. Harper resents that they speak against the pipelines AT ALL and is threatening them. Forest Ethics is taking this step to protect themselves from attacks by the PMO. They shouldn't have to do this when they are within the rules, and the fact that they've put themselves beyond his grasp has ticked Harper off bigtime.

The problem is why is the PMO wasting taxpayers' money attacking environmental groups in such a juvenile way?

In Economic Action Plan 2012, our Government announced that charities would be required to be more transparent and more accountable to Canadians when it comes to their activities. But this was all too much for at least one radical organization who today announced the creation of a stand-alone group devoted entirely to political advocacy.

I mean really ... does that look like it came from a Prime Minister's office? No, it looks like it came - maybe - from a political party office directed at another political party. It's the kind of snippy political attack that Canadians hate and babypolitical hacks love. It demeans the PMO.

The junior political hacks in the PMO are attacking the 'scary' environmentalists with the same fervour that LictorDoitwell attacks Jews and nonwhites. Such attacks on freedom of speech by extremist corporafascists are par for the course on discussion boards, but they look pretty pathetic coming from the PMO.

I don't mind my tax dollars going to Forest Ethics for advocacy work, but I don't like funding the PMO hackattackpack to make nya-nya-nya-nya-nya attacks on groups that speak out against Harper's oil agenda.

It's apparent that Harper was put into office by the oil lobby for one purpose: to see that the oil pipelines are built. Since there is huge public opposition, that will only happen if protesters are neutralized by fear of retaliation from the PMO - ie, IF FREE SPEECH IS SQUASHED.

Political terrorism from the PMO.

And of course we know that Harper is opposed to the Charter of Rights that protects free speech ...

Edited April 21, 2012 by jacee

[Jack Weber]

The problem is that Liz may is an idiot that sane people don't give much credit to.

The same could be said for Ezra Levant....

[g_bambino]

Regardless, the government should not attack citizens and citizen groups. If the Conservative Party wants to, they can, and I would expect it. The PMO should not be taking on that role.

Why not? The prime minister's opponents in opposition are citizens. And if citizens' groups want to play politics, then they should be prepared to be countered by those who disagree with them, including Cabinet ministers.

[cybercoma]

Because the government is supposed to govern for all Canadians and be representative of all Canadians, not just the people that vote for them. We're not talking about some backbencher issuing these attacks. This is the PMO.

[g_bambino]

Since both, the PM and the environmentalist are VERY passionate about their views, I wonder what the PM will do if it becomes physical and violent, will HE attack his own citizens?

Doubtful. He isn't in very good physical shape.

[g_bambino]

Because the government is supposed to govern for all Canadians and be representative of all Canadians, not just the people that vote for them.

Not in the real world; it just doesn't work that way in a democracy. There are laws - written and conventional - that require certain equal treatment of all Canadians by the government. Beyond that, it's all partisan politics.

[Guest Derek L]

Forest Ethics and other such nonprofit groups are allowed 10% advocacy work. Harper resents that they speak against the pipelines AT ALL and is threatening them. Forest Ethics is taking this step to protect themselves from attacks by the PMO. They shouldn't have to do this when they are within the rules, and the fact that they've put themselves beyond his grasp has ticked Harper off bigtime.

The problem is why is the PMO wasting taxpayers' money attacking environmental groups in such a juvenile way?

In Economic Action Plan 2012, our Government announced that charities would be required to be more transparent and more accountable to Canadians when it comes to their activities. But this was all too much for at least one radical organization who today announced the creation of a stand-alone group devoted entirely to political advocacy.

I mean really ... does that look like it came from a Prime Minister's office? No, it looks like it came - maybe - from a political party office directed at another political party. It's the kind of snippy political attack that Canadians hate and babypolitical hacks love. It demeans the PMO.

The junior political hacks in the PMO are attacking the 'scary' environmentalists with the same fervour that LictorDoitwell attacks Jews and nonwhites. Such attacks on freedom of speech by extremist corporafascists are par for the course on discussion boards, but they look pretty pathetic coming from the PMO.

I don't mind my tax dollars going to Forest Ethics for advocacy work, but I don't like funding the PMO hackattackpack to make nya-nya-nya-nya-nya attacks on groups that speak out against Harper's oil agenda.

It's apparent that Harper was put into office by the oil lobby for one purpose: to see that the oil pipelines are built. Since there is huge public opposition, that will only happen if protesters are neutralized by fear of retaliation from the PMO - ie, IF FREE SPEECH IS SQUASHED.

Political terrorism from the PMO.

And of course we know that Harper is opposed to the Charter of Rights that protects free speech ...

That’s the rub…….tax payer’s dollars going for advocacy groups, shouldn’t be so (And IMO Religious organizations shouldn’t receive charitable status either, but that’s another topic)…….As pointed out by Ms. May, the more effective group was the one set-up like a corporation………The individual should be free to pay for their own dogma.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Derek L

[jbg]

the Cabinet and the parliament to which the ministers of the Crown in Cabinet are responsible are not.[ed.: +]

I thought Chretien was a saint.

[Topaz]

Harper is trying to take responsibilities of the feds, concerning the environment to the provinces, good or bad, only time will tell, but if Harper wants to be Premier of Alberta someday, he'll makes sure the provinces have more power in certain areas and then that firewall he and the WildRose want will be complete. Is separation down the road for Alberta?

[jbg]

Harper is trying to take responsibilities of the feds, concerning the environment to the provinces, good or bad, only time will tell, but if Harper wants to be Premier of Alberta someday, he'll makes sure the provinces have more power in certain areas and then that firewall he and the WildRose want will be complete. Is separation down the road for Alberta?

Is there a coherent thought there?

[jacee]

That’s the rub…….tax payer’s dollars going for advocacy groups, shouldn’t be so (And IMO Religious organizations shouldn’t receive charitable status either, but that’s another topic)…….As pointed out by Ms. May, the more effective group was the one set-up like a corporation………The individual should be free to pay for their own dogma.

I most definitely agree about the churches, and I have no problem with ForestEthics setting up a separate nonprofit for advocacy, which is not a charity activity.

However, it's becoming embarrassing how Harper shows such a striking lack of knowledge of human behaviour: Does he really think he can scare us into submission with hissy fits and threats? It's really quite bizarre.

Harper and his spintwits try to intimidate and frighten ... and Canadians rebel ...

http://forestethics.org/forestethics-challenges-governments-unrelenting-crackdown-on-non-profits-by-launching-two-new-organizations

If the government thinks that Canadians will turn a blind eye to its dismantling of environmental oversight in order to pander to Big Oil interests, it has severely underestimated its people,” continued Ms. Skuce.

Since the New Year attacks from the federal government, support and donations have been pouring in to ForestEthics in record amounts, showing that Canadians care more about clean water, wild places and democracy than just tax receipts.

And now ForestEthics is beyond Harper's grasp, and he's reduced to firing out 'sour grapes' hissy fit memos.

It's pathetic.

Edited April 23, 2012 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

I most definitely agree about the churches, and I have no problem with ForestEthics setting up a separate nonprofit for advocacy, which is not a charity activity.

However, it's becoming embarrassing how Harper shows such a striking lack of knowledge of human behaviour: Does he really think he can scare us into submission with hissy fits and threats? It's really quite bizarre.

Harper and his spintwits try to intimidate and frighten ... and Canadians rebel ...

http://forestethics.org/forestethics-challenges-governments-unrelenting-crackdown-on-non-profits-by-launching-two-new-organizations

If the government thinks that Canadians will turn a blind eye to its dismantling of environmental oversight in order to pander to Big Oil interests, it has severely underestimated its people,” continued Ms. Skuce.

Since the New Year attacks from the federal government, support and donations have been pouring in to ForestEthics in record amounts, showing that Canadians care more about clean water, wild places and democracy than just tax receipts.

Then what’s the problem? The individual(s) can pay for their own dogma……..No problem with that. If anything, those that donate their own time and money to said cause get more out of it.

[jacee]

Then what’s the problem? The individual(s) can pay for their own dogma……..No problem with that. If anything, those that donate their own time and money to said cause get more out of it.

Ya ... no problem ... So why is the PMO sending out a nasty 'infoalert'?

Harper and his twenty-teen political hacks (paid by the taxpayer) need to grow up.

As E May says:

This PMO spends more on “information officers” than any previous PMO. Talk about abuse of taxpayers’ dollars; this bunch spends $10 million/year in shadowy political operatives and “Info Alerts.”

It's an attitude problem, Derek.

If Harper wants to deliver his pipelines, (doubtful) he might have to learn some diplomacy, something we expect of a PM anyway.

So far, he's adopted the schoolyard bully stance and smear tactics, and it's not going down well with Canadians. It's interfering with progress and solutions ... not that I care if he blows it!

But frankly, Harper's just not very people-smart.

Edited April 23, 2012 by jacee

[g_bambino]

Does he really think he can scare us into submission with hissy fits and threats?

A good number of advocacy groups seem to think it works.