Rex Murphy's Conflict of Interest on the Oilsands

[The_Squid]

Audits don't mean they did anything illegal. This gov't doesn't like environmental organizations and they may be using the CRA against their perceived opponents.

No need for insults. Don't be so childish.

[waldo]

When you consider that his charitable organization is actually a lobby group we pay him with illegal tax breaks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/7-environmental-charities-face-canada-revenue-agency-audits-1.2526330

you speak with such authority in claiming "illegal tax breaks"... and then you come back with a reference... a most recent dated reference that speaks to an audit. Isn't your zeal just a bit ahead of any results of an audit?

of course, as I highlighted in an earlier post (below), charitable organization political advocacy is allowed per the "10% rule"..... and this audit is simply an offshoot of the Harper Conservative "enemies of the state" campaign!

CRA has a 2003 dated policy statement related to registered charities 'political activities'; i.e., the "10% rule"... to retain its charitable status, a charity can't allocate more than 10% of its total yearly resources to political activities. The following graphic extract also speaks to caveat allowances that can be applied for "small charities". The prior link also includes updates related to the 2012 "tightening restrictions" applied by Harper Conservatives, to ensure compliance with the 10% rule... this reflects significant 2012 budget allocations to the CRA to ensure appropriate monitoring processes/resources are in place to enforce this CRA policy. Of course, this all reflects back on the flap raised by the Harper Conservatives offshoot "Ethical Oil" campaign and it's "enemies of the state" vitriol spoken by various cabinet ministers, most notably Harper Conservatives Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver:

[waldo]

hey gunrutz, speaking of advocacy... is this the kind you're in favour of?

Oh my! All those Harper Conservative accusations of subversion by environmental groups, of the improper influence of foreign charitable organizations... all going on while Harper Conservatives were working to undermine the supposed independence of the NEB process. And now this - say it ain't so!

Alberta, Ottawa, oil lobby formed secret committee

The federal and Alberta governments struck up a secret, high-level committee in early 2010 to coordinate the promotion of the oilsands with Canada’s most powerful industry lobby group, a document obtained through an access to information request reveals.

The committee brought together the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) with deputy ministers from Natural Resources, Environment Canada, Alberta Energy and Alberta Environment to synchronize their lobbying offensive in the face of mounting protest and looming international regulations targeting the Alberta crude.


The revelation of the secret government-industry committee comes on the heels of an announcement that Environment Canada will try to “strengthen” cooperation with the oil sector by assigning a senior official to head up the newly formed Canadian Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, a partnership of a dozen major oilsands companies

government... the advocacy arm of the oil industry! Damnit, where's the sanctity of the separation of oil and state!

[bleeding heart]

Yeah, but why focus on trivial matters like the Government of Canada....when we're talking the really big boys here...like David Suzuki.

[Michael Hardner]

What this is about is a paid shill taking his paid time on The National to advocate for his corporate masters, and furthermore to try to talk about "irresponsible" behavior of Neil Young for advocating for the environment.

I'm pretty sure that most people don't see a "moral equivalent" in advocating for environmental protection and advocating for profit - and that to me is evidenced by Rex's obvious shame in not mentioning that with the standard 'full disclosure'.

[bleeding heart]

I agree. Further, the idea that he simply "agrees with the oil companies" is a non-starter as an argument...of course he does, and that in and of itself is not the issue. The issue is one of disclosure and the perception of a conflict of interest.

When the story about the retired Generals speaking on CNN, FOX, ABC news, etc broke several years ago in their robust defense of the Iraq War....the issue wasn't whether their opinions were genuine; the issue was that, first, many of them were in the employ of military contractors directly making money from the war, and second, that they were briefed at the Pentagon with "talking points" before they went on the news shows as "independent analysts."

I'd be interested to know if Murphy met with any PR agents to be debriefed on "talking points."

[TimG]

The issue is one of disclosure and the perception of a conflict of interest.

What disclosure are you expecting and why weren't the same rules applied to Suzuki years ago? Or does conflict of interest only apply to people who associate with groups you don't like?

This issue is a fabrication of totalitarians in the climate alarmist movement who constantly seek to suppress people who say things they don't like.

Edited February 20, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

I'm finding your argument altogether too selectively shape-shifting, edging into tu quoque territory, and then sprinting far beyond even that:

On the one hand, you accuse Suzuki of being a shill, dishonestly making money for his ideological stances;

Then you suggest we shouldn't criticize Rex, because he and Suzuki are in the same boat;

But you also seem to want to have it that Murphy didn't do anything unseemly, at all.

So your argument is that Suzuki is just as bad as Murphy...but that Murphy didn't do anything bad?

[TimG]

On the one hand, you accuse Suzuki of being a shill, dishonestly making money for his ideological stances;

He is.

Then you suggest we shouldn't criticize Rex, because he and Suzuki are in the same boat;

I am saying that if the same criticism is not leveled at Suzuki with a much greater amount of vitriol then it has no merit because the complainers are shameless hypocrites who are motivated by things other than a desire for transparency. If a complainer goes after Suzuki as well then it would be worth listening to what they have to say.

But you also seem to want to have it that Murphy didn't do anything unseemly, at all.

Being paid to talk at events is not a big conflict on interest because the primary thing people are paid for is being entertaining and thought provoking. There is little requirement for the speaker to support a specific cause in other contexts even if one's general beliefs were the reason for the invite.

Being paid to be a spokesman for a political lobby group is a huge conflict on interest because the purpose of a lobby group is to market particular opinions. In this case, being the host of a science show gives Suzuki the ability to twist the presentation of the science to support the cause he is paid to lobby for. He has been doing this for years with absolutely no disclosure other than noting that he is a 'environmentalist' which does not capture the nature of his relationship.

Edited February 20, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Well, I can sympathize with the disgust at ideological hypocrisy, if that's what you're seeing.

I feel the same way every time people talk about how the Western states are morally opposed to terrorism--a preposterous view, shared only and explicitly by Commissars. Terrorists are not morally opposed to terrorism.

But at the same time, we have to at least sometimes avoid the tu quoque (we don't have to always do so, as tu quoques are not in every instance illegitimate).

In other words, I completely agree that Western governments should be trying to fight and to reduce terrorism...their own complicity in the noxious behavior doesn't change that.

And if Suzuki is a dishonest shill, that doesn't mean that Murphy is honest. If everything is cool, it's funny how he neglected to mention that he has a lot to personally gain from his perspective.

Edited February 20, 2014 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

And if Suzuki is a dishonest shill, that doesn't mean that Murphy is honest. If everything is cool, it's funny how he neglected to mention that he has a lot to personally gain from his perspective.

This story outrages me not because I think the fact that Rex is paid to talk at industry events should not be disclosed by the CBC (it should be disclosed) but by the totalitarianism that underlies the demands. i.e. the issue for the complainers is not that Rex receives monies from outside groups but that he has opinions which the complainers don't like and they want him silenced.

[bleeding heart]

They're no more trying to silence Murphy than you're trying to silence Suzuki. That is, not at all.

Influential public media figures can be forthright; or not. And we can call them on it.

[TimG]

They're no more trying to silence Murphy than you're trying to silence Suzuki. That is, not at all.

Then why did they ignore Suzuki for years? This ideological blindness clearly shows that the complainers are not motivated simply by a desire for transparency. The video on the other thread is an excellent illustration of how climate activists hate people who say things they don't like and wish to see them exterminated. Given that context it is not a stretch to say that the real motivation of the complainers is to silence Rex. Edited February 20, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

How could they "silence" Rex?

I'm reminded of Sarah Palin informing us that all the criticisms mounted against her were an attempt to "stifle my freedom of speech."

Edited February 20, 2014 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

How could they "silence" Rex?

You seem to missing the difference between the motivation and the likely outcome of the action. Most likely Rex will continue to work at CBC with a disclosure on his bio on the CBC website. But the complainers are hoping that if they make a big enough stink that Rex will lose his job at CBC (which is a form of silencing him). If nothing else they hope to undermine his credibility so fewer people will listen to him.

IOW, the video on the other other thread is an illustration of what climate alarmists desire but practical realities force them to accept lesser outcomes. That does not mean it is wrong to point out their desires and criticize them for that. In this case, the evidence for that their motivation is not a desire for transparency because Suzuki has been ignored for years. I guess I would be open to other theories on what their real motivation is.

Edited February 20, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Well, people trying to "undermine credibility" of media figures is common to....every single popular political commentator--without exception.

I don't see the problem here, and I don't see it as a "free speech" issue.

Folks like murphy have more "free speech" than the rest of us; we all have (give or take) the negative right to free speech; if the positive right is taken away through public pressure (as opposed to legal decisions) then there is no speech injustice that has been committed.

When the show about ordinary American Muslims was taken off the air, thanks to pressure on the advertisers ("bad" Muslim behavior should be given "equal time" was the spurious argument), that is not a free speech issue. I think it betrays an ugliness and a bigotry (and your argument could go in that direction)...but it's not a free speech issue.

A Walmart employee is barred by threat of dismissal if he or she says things publically that the company feels will reflect poorly upon them.

Is that a "free speech" issue?

[cybercoma]

I hate this ridiculous notion that discourse and criticism amounts to gagging and restricting free speech. Sorry, but the entire purpose of free speech is for the free exchange of ideas. It's so that ideas CAN be criticized, so we improve them and learn. Free speech doesn't mean your ideas and arguments are free from criticism. I can see what that kind of interpretation of "free speech" would be appealing to some.

[TimG]

When the show about ordinary American Muslims was taken off the air, thanks to pressure on the advertisers ("bad" Muslim behavior should be given "equal time" was the spurious argument), that is not a free speech issue.

Actually I think it is. A personal decision to boycott a product or show because you don't like it message is a fair exercise of personal choice. But whenever someone starts a campaign to convince others to make the same choice then you are attempting to deny others their right to free speech. If you simply speak out and express your displeasure at the shows message then you are exercising your right to free speech.

A Walmart employee is barred by threat of dismissal if he or she says things publically that the company feels will reflect poorly upon them.

Not a free speech issue since accepting employment comes with terms and those terms include not bad mouthing your employer. If you wish to bad mouth your employer you always have the option of quitting. Edited February 20, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

I agree, cyber. Free speech is crystallized by response, disagreement and criticism; without the response, it is merely calcified.

Edited February 20, 2014 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

Wha?

A boycott is usually "a campaign to convince others to make the same choice."

And when Rex Murphy asserts his argument on energy concerns, he is actively trying to sway people to his point of view..

And when Christopher Hitchens wrote about the Iraq War, he was explicitly trying to make the case for it, and to convince people to support it. Same with those writing in opposition to it, or debating with the war's supporters.

And on and on. All political commentary is advocacy, and is enacted in part to alter the way people think about something.

[Moonlight Graham]

Rex likely decided to look seriously at the evidence and discovered, as many skeptics do, that the science is being completely misrepresented by alarmists.

Rex is a journalist, not a scientist. He knows very little about climate science. Probably about as much as you or I know. Neither Rex, nor you, nor me, are in any position to take much of stance on the climate science since we have a very surface understanding of the science, and much of what we know is fed to us through the media and not through decades of research via scientific journals and other academic sources.

Once he made his views clear it makes sense that oil companies would seek him out since he is a well known personality.

You could say the exact same thing about David Suzuki and his " big green causes".

Edited February 20, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

A boycott is usually "a campaign to convince others to make the same choice."

A boycott is not about persuading people to believe what you believe - it is about meting out punishment to people who have offended you. It has no more legitimacy than a lynch mob. Like I said, if someone wants to get on a soap box and rant about how wrong a show or personality is wrong then all the power too them. But as soon as they change the focus from expressing opinions to handing out punishments they change from exercising free speech to denying free speech. Edited February 20, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

We've gone over this already; you haven't answered anything I've said; and you're equating boycotts to "lynch mobs"? You do know what a "lynch mob" is, yes?

[guyser]

We've gone over this already; you haven't answered anything I've said; and you're equating boycotts to "lynch mobs"? You do know what a "lynch mob" is, yes?

I doubt it. Not to mention what free speech is.

[Argus]

What this is about is a paid shill taking his paid time on The National to advocate for his corporate masters

I don't think anyone with an ounce of thought or neutrality would suggest that Rex Murphy's opinions are paid for by the oil industry.

, and furthermore to try to talk about "irresponsible" behavior of Neil Young for advocating for the environment.

He was irresponsible. He's one of those people one sees, much like Suzuki, who is an absolutist because compromise and complication irritate him. Suzuki and Young share the same belief, that the economy and money and jobs have no importance whatsoever. By any measure that's dumb as well as irresponsible.

I'm pretty sure that most people don't see a "moral equivalent" in advocating for environmental protection and advocating for profit - and that to me is evidenced by Rex's obvious shame in not mentioning that with the standard 'full disclosure'.

But it's only your fantasy that Murphy advocates on air because of 'profit' unless of course, you're talking about what the CBC pays him. And to reiterate, Suzuki makes money, ie, profit, from hs stances on the environment. If he changed his stance he'd make no more money.