Sleipnir Posted January 15, 2013 Report Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) I thought the federal government was supposed to be non-partisan when it comes to posting information on government (not party) website. http://www.acdi-cida...C-111213736-54K I figured attack ads were reserved for party website not government.... Thoughts? Edit: It was removed from the website, but screen shots do come in handy at times Edited January 16, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 15, 2013 Report Share Posted January 15, 2013 Thoughts?It is clearly labelled as a speech by the Minister of International Cooperation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted January 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) It is clearly labelled as a speech by the Minister of International Cooperation. Julian Fantino, still a member of the Conservative party. Edited January 15, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 15, 2013 Report Share Posted January 15, 2013 It is clearly labelled as a speech by the Minister of International Cooperation. no - it isn't... and it's not. It's a copy of Fantino's HuffPost blog entry - here: since you live and breath the legitimacy of all that is blogWorld, I expect you have no qualms over an official Harper Conservative government website crossing boundaries to include unchallenged Fantino/CPC propaganda! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 15, 2013 Report Share Posted January 15, 2013 Julian Fantino, still a member of the Conservative party.As are all Ministers at this point in time. The question is if one thinks a rule banning speeches by Ministers on government websites is needed? I don't - only that speeches must be clearly labelled as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 The question is if one thinks a rule banning speeches by Ministers.... It was just pointed out to you that it's not a speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) I thought the federal government was supposed to be non-partisan when it comes to posting information on government (not party) website.http://www.acdi-cida...C-111213736-54K Hmm... The page disappeared sometime in the last half hour. [ed.: c/e] Edited January 16, 2013 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) It was just pointed out to you that it's not a speech.waldo is on ignore. Not sure what a difference it makes that it is opinion piece rather than a speech. That said, it appears to have violated some government policy and was taken down - that is fine with me too as long as the rules are consistently applied. Edited January 16, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted January 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Hmm... The page disappeared sometime in the last half hour. [ed.: c/e] I post the screen shot on the first page for anyone who missed the letter before it was removed. Edited January 16, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 It probably disappeared after the NDP leader told Simon on CBC, which the government does watch, to pull it off because it was on government of Canada website which is illegal. I guess the Tories agreed with Tom and pulled it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I doubt it was the minister who put it there or even asked for it to be put there. It's far more likely that some low level bureaucrat screwed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I doubt it was the minister who put it there or even asked for it to be put there. It's far more likely that some low level bureaucrat screwed up.It is just as likely that the minister or political aid to the minister ordered it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) It is just as likely that the minister or political aid to the minister ordered it up. That's also possible, yes. I'd like to think that the minister isn't that stupid, though. Edited January 16, 2013 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 waldo is on ignore. Oh, I see. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted January 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 It's far more likely that some low level bureaucrat screwed up. I don't see how anyone can make such a blunder on a government website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Cached copy - if you missed it. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.acdi-cida.gc.ca%2Facdi-cida%2FACDI-CIDA.nsf%2Feng%2FCEC-111213736-54K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Hahahaha funny stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 waldo is on ignore.huh! I'm stunned... something in the last day then? I apologize if you took umbrage to it being shown you didn't know what decadal prediction was... or that speaking of climate sensitivity in a decadal ensemble context is incorrect. Look, a lot of people were taken in by the purposeful 'paused warming' misinformation in that linked National Post article... just roll with it! Surely it couldn't have been over my comments concerning the legitimacy of 'bloggers' within the so-called post-modern categorization of 'blogScience', relative to the accepted formal scientific peer-review process... surely not that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted January 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 huh! I'm stunned... something in the last day then? I apologize if you took umbrage to it being shown you didn't know what decadal prediction was... or that speaking of climate sensitivity in a decadal ensemble context is incorrect. Look, a lot of people were taken in by the purposeful 'paused warming' misinformation in that linked National Post article... just roll with it! Surely it couldn't have been over my comments concerning the legitimacy of 'bloggers' within the so-called post-modern categorization of 'blogScience', relative to the accepted formal scientific peer-review process... surely not that! Wrong thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I just checked to see if perhaps it was intended to be posted on the CPC website, but it's not there either. That part is strange, because I actually would expect a letter like that to be posted on the CPC front page, it's what they do. Makes me think that Smallc is correct that it was not intended to be posted at all, and some lower level worker picked the wrong time to show initiative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I doubt it was the minister who put it there or even asked for it to be put there. It's far more likely that some low level bureaucrat screwed up. Highly unlikely. I don't work at that agency, but in mine, nothing gets onto our external web site without approval from the assistant commissioner (deputy minister's) office. They are very careful indeed of anything that goes out to the public. No, most likely this was pushed on CIDA by one of Fantino's political aides in the minister's office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 That's also possible, yes. I'd like to think that the minister isn't that stupid, though. Perhaps you'd 'like' to, but given his history, you have no valid reason for making that assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 waldo is on ignore. Not sure what a difference it makes that it is opinion piece rather than a speech. That said, it appears to have violated some government policy and was taken down - that is fine with me too as long as the rules are consistently applied. LOL me too The piece has been taken down so it really doesn't matter, someon acted and it must have been wrong. No doubt there'll be umpteen pages though.. LOL carry on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I doubt it was the minister who put it there or even asked for it to be put there. It's far more likely that some low level bureaucrat screwed up. I wonder how many times the Conservatives get to say "Ooops! We're really sorry for that" and people will still believe them. You know, they seem to make an awful lot of "mistakes" that they need to apologize for. If they were actually making this many errors, then they look completely incompetent and I would be embarrassed to say I support them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I wonder how many times the Conservatives get to say "Ooops! We're really sorry for that" and people will still believe them. You know, they seem to make an awful lot of "mistakes" that they need to apologize for. If they were actually making this many errors, then they look completely incompetent and I would be embarrassed to say I support them. Those types of mistakes are so minor in the grand scheme of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.