Jump to content

RCMP officer pokes fun at Trudeau and Socialism on his own time and could be punished for it.


Recommended Posts

  • blackbird changed the title to RCMP officer pokes fun at Trudeau and Socialism on his own time and could be punished for it.

Yeah, I agree that he shouldn't be allowed to publicly comment on his own department, ie RCMP.  He has inside knowledge and direct access to the leadership structure.

But disallowing criticism of government in GENERAL is ridiculous overreach and not appropriate for a democracy IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, I agree that he shouldn't be allowed to publicly comment on his own department, ie RCMP.  He has inside knowledge and direct access to the leadership structure.

But disallowing criticism of government in GENERAL is ridiculous overreach and not appropriate for a democracy IMO.

Consider a scenario in which an RCMP officer publicly expressed negative views on immigrants and then arrested an immigrant on thin/no evidence, and the case was later thrown out in court.  Wouldn't this officer's public statements make the RCMP more liable if the victim chose to sue?  I would think knowingly letting a biased officer interact with the public might not be in the RCMP's best interest.  

It's an interesting case, imo.  If the RCMP gives the boot to this individual, would he be able to sue for wrongful dismissal?  Hope the story is followed long enough to learn the outcome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

in GENERAL is ridiculous overreach and not appropriate 

Are you conservative really or you were joking? Sometimes I can't detect sarcasm.

This is what a conservative defines a professional in law enforcement? 😄 

What's next, if the RCMP or a CSIS officer feels upset that their politics are not represented by the political class, they should go to the media?

Of course one can, of course one can build websites about Trudeau or Harper, his website was about Immigration too (when he is an officer of the RCMP?! 😅).

Is not against the law even though @dialamah pointed out some avenues that lawyers can purse. 

But at the end, even though not illegal, so he can do it, is that one a good professional? 

He should have join a political party instead of law enforcement is my final opinion. 

Edited by Contrarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

1. Consider a scenario in which an RCMP officer publicly expressed negative views on immigrants and then arrested an immigrant on thin/no evidence, and the case was later thrown out in court.  Wouldn't this officer's public statements make the RCMP more liable if the victim chose to sue?  I would think knowingly letting a biased officer interact with the public might not be in the RCMP's best interest.  

2. It's an interesting case, imo.  If the RCMP gives the boot to this individual, would he be able to sue for wrongful dismissal?  Hope the story is followed long enough to learn the outcome.

1. Well we could go through case-to-case to determine what's fair and what's not but as I said general criticism shouldn't be prohibited.
2. You can always sue.  Can you win is the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

 

1. This is what a conservative defines a professional in law enforcement? 😄 

2. What's next, if the RCMP or a CSIS officer feels upset that their politics are not represented by the political class, they should go to the media?

3. Of course one can, of course one can build websites about Trudeau or Harper, his website was about Immigration too (when he is an officer of the RCMP?! 😅). Is not against the law even though @dialamah pointed out some avenues that lawyers can purse.  But at the end, even though not illegal, so he can do it, is that one a good professional?  He should have join a political party instead of law enforcement is my final opinion. 

1. Conservatives prize freedom.
2. That sounds like complaining about the government, which is kind of what we do... at cocktail parties, BBQs, in general.  
3. Devil is in the details but complaining about immigration isn't racism fyi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Devil is in the details but complaining about immigration isn't racism fyi.

Who said "Racism"?  

What are you talking about? Why are you adding words?

I was referring strictly to him being an officer of the law and how I find it unprofessional for him to get involved in political activism especially in a subject that he is directly in charge, as authority (immigration). 

Wasn't enough to complain to the wife or amongst officers? 

If he wants to be a revolutionary, maybe he chose the wrong profession? 

Clearly we have different definitions of professionalism when it comes to mixing law enforcement/intelligence officers with politics. 

Edited by Contrarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But disallowing criticism of government in GENERAL is ridiculous overreach and not appropriate for a democracy IMO.

While I don't think it's appropriate to disallow political commentary/criticism in general, that's not really what this is.  When you have a federal police officer spending his private time publicly ridiculing the government over identity-politic issues like immigration and LGBTQ+, you open yourself up to accusations of bias and impartiality.  These sorts of things are absolutely the type that an attorney would use in a courtroom to discredit an officer or even worse his entire unit/institution.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well we could go through case-to-case to determine what's fair and what's not but as I said general criticism shouldn't be prohibited.

Perhaps, but a case-by-case application of rules/standards leads quite a lot open to interpretation.  Having political opinions and expressing them like an adult is one thing.  Being a hyperbolic mouthpiece over wedge-politics online is another. 

Folks need to keep in mind that for every police officer or soldier there is complaining about the Liberals, there are 10x as many teachers, nurses and civil administrators ready to tell everyone how racist and corpo-friendly the conservatives are, and how they hate students, want to privatize health care and are destroying the environment. There's an inherent conflict of interest in this sort of political advocacy, and as a public servant who represents your organization, you IMO have a responsibility to recognize this and maintain a degree of public impartiality and professionalism. 

These groups know which Party butters their bread, and spending their free time plugging for the one that tends to support and pay them more is, IMO, highly inappropriate.  

 

 

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

1. Who said "Racism"?   1What are you talking about? Why are you adding words?

2. I was referring strictly to him being an officer of the law and how I find it unprofessional for him to get involved in political activism especially in a subject that he is directly in charge, as authority (immigration). 

3. If he wants to be a revolutionary, maybe he chose the wrong profession? Clearly we have different definitions of professionalism when it comes to mixing law enforcement/intelligence officers with politics. 

1. I'm trying to understand how writing about immigration, which is essentially economic policy, would be a problem for an RCMP officer.
2. Is writing about immigration 'activism' ?  What about writing about bad weather prediction ?  The government does that too.
3. I will admit I didn't. watch his videos.  Maybe that has something to do with it, but I said that there should be no general limit on criticism of government imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 I'm trying to understand how writing about immigration

Well, I don't consider it professional. @Moonbox is more of a politician than me, he can use words well, the word that he used was impartiality which fits perfectly. Use a software to access his past posts then see how his impartiality levels were. 

You consider it professional or no big deal. If you had a business and that business pays you, would you tolerate your employees to criticise your business, the hand that feeds you over your own personal BIAS? Isn't there such thing as Ethic? There should be more professionalism in law enforcement than in the private industry. 

No need to add extra words like "racism" to try to make your point. 

Edited by Contrarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I see in all this is once government or authority starts controlling what individuals say on their own time on the internet, then it becomes a slippery slope.  Who is next to fall under Big Brothers control?  The Liberal's Heritage Minister has been working on legislation to control social media, etc.  If government had its way there would be no free speech.  They consider anything said against the Liberals as offensive and unacceptable.  So do the NDP.   Lefty politicians have no concept of freedom of speech and they believe it should be heavily controlled.

The next goal on the road to becoming a totalitarian state and creating the leftist idea of a utopia is to take away everyone's freedom of speech.  But this could be done in steps by targeting certain professions first, then expanding it to include others and finally include everyone.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The problem I see in all this is once government or authority starts controlling what individuals say on their own time on the internet, then it becomes a slippery slope.  Who is next to fall under Big Brothers control?  The Liberal's Heritage Minister has been working on legislation to control social media, etc.  If government had its way there would be no free speech.  They consider anything said against the Liberals as offensive and unacceptable.  So do the NDP.   Lefty politicians have no concept of freedom of speech and they believe it should be heavily controlled.

The next goal on the road to becoming a totalitarian state and creating the leftist idea of a utopia is to take away everyone's freedom of speech.  But this could be done in steps by targeting certain professions first, then expanding it to include others and finally include everyone.

Brother @blackbird please spare me the ideological warfare because if the agent was doing this towards the conservatives the way this one is doing it to the liberals, you would be amongst the first here to tell us "The Communists are taking over". 

You are just defending him because he criticised Trudeau. That's all you need. 

Ethic, Professionalism, and "Impartiality" does not matter. 

Edited by Contrarian
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The problem I see in all this is once government or authority starts controlling what individuals say on their own time on the internet, then it becomes a slippery slope.

Slippery-slopes are weak rhetorical devices.  They're usually referred to as examples of bad logic.  

Nobody is saying anything about individuals.  We're saying that public servants are paid to serve the public, not their own best interests.  

There's a conflict of interest in public servants plugging for the Party that plays nicest with them.  The Liberals  benefit from this probably more than anyone, so if you want your tax dollars to go towards folk who are going to advocate and propagandize for the Party that pays them the most and holds them to the lowest standards, be prepared for our young people to get indoctrinated by charismatic teachers who post their own videos online.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is funny is Trudeau uses his highest office in the land as PM to pontificate to millions of Canadians about his view of the world and his progressive ideology and he does it in his position as PM on mainstream media using taxpayer money.  Yet some policeman in his off hours and without identifying his occupation makes up a mime or drama thing on his website with a likely very small audience.   The CBC finds out his ID and makes it public and all the liberal followers and lefties go nuts and demand he be silenced.  No doubt some local liberal in his town was told and reported him to the CBC so they can use their national coverage to trash him.  Even the local mayor gets involved and condemns him speaking on social media.  Must be a Liberal or NDP.  The whole thing about silencing him is obviously political.  Perhaps he should consider fighting for his freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights in court.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What is funny is Trudeau uses his highest office in the land as PM to pontificate to millions of Canadians about his view of the world and his progressive ideology and he does it in his position as PM on mainstream media using taxpayer money.

Politicians are chosen by taxpayers to enact a mandate or ideology.  They're 100% biased and generally expected to be.  If we don't like what he's doing, we can vote to turf him.  We can't do that for a police officer, or a teacher, or a nurse etc.  

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No doubt some local liberal in his town was told and reported him to the CBC so they can use their national coverage to trash him.  

How would you feel if you had a charismatic teacher posting anti-christianity videos online and being followed by a plurality of students?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Some of his stuff is actually funny but it is not something a police officer should be doing.

He can leave his job and troll Liberals all day if he wants, he will probably make good money now that he is famous. 

Edited by Contrarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Politicians are chosen by taxpayers to enact a mandate or ideology.  They're 100% biased and generally expected to be.  If we don't like what he's doing, we can vote to turf him. 

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

We can't do that for a police officer, or a teacher, or a nurse etc.  

 

No, they are not.  They are elected to provide good government, not use their position to push progressive ideology.  They are supposed to be governing for all Canadians, not just liberals or progressives.

 

So in your way of thinking a police officer, teacher, or nurse does not have freedom of speech.  Obviously your claim is against the Charter of Rights which guarantees freedom of expression to everyone.  It doesn't exclude some people.

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

How would you feel if you had a charismatic teacher posting anti-christianity videos online and being followed by a plurality of students?  

Anti-Christian speeches or commentary are common in every level of society.   How often are Liberals losing their freedom of speech?  Never or very rare.  Their liberal/progressive ideology is the common speech among most politicians, and media.

You are so badly brainwashed with progressive ideology that you can't see the problem.  You want to silence everyone who opposes it.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

1. Well, I don't consider it professional. 

2. You consider it professional or no big deal.

3. If you had a business and that business pays you, would you tolerate your employees to criticise your business, the hand that feeds you over your own personal BIAS?

4. Isn't there such thing as Ethic? There should be more professionalism in law enforcement than in the private industry. 

5. No need to add extra words like "racism" to try to make your point. 

1. It's not professional to utter an opinion on policy ?  Ok.
2. I don't consider it unprofessional.
3. If my business was the nation of Canada, I would defer to the right people have in a democracy to say something about it.  Does this mean nobody in public service should say anything publicly about politics ?
4. If he was talking about police matters in an unprofessional way I would disagree.
5.  I am still trying to figure out why immigration, as a topic, has special status when it comes to commenting.  What about weather prediction ?  Serious question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

While I don't think it's appropriate to disallow political commentary/criticism in general, that's not really what this is.  When you have a federal police officer spending his private time publicly ridiculing the government over identity-politic issues like immigration and LGBTQ+, you open yourself up to accusations of bias and impartiality.  These sorts of things are absolutely the type that an attorney would use in a courtroom to discredit an officer or even worse his entire unit/institution.

Perhaps, but a case-by-case application of rules/standards leads quite a lot open to interpretation.  Having political opinions and expressing them like an adult is one thing.  Being a hyperbolic mouthpiece over wedge-politics online is another. 

Folks need to keep in mind that for every police officer or soldier there is complaining about the Liberals, there are 10x as many teachers, nurses and civil administrators ready to tell everyone how racist and corpo-friendly the conservatives are, and how they hate students, want to privatize health care and are destroying the environment. There's an inherent conflict of interest in this sort of political advocacy, and as a public servant who represents your organization, you IMO have a responsibility to recognize this and maintain a degree of public impartiality and professionalism. 

These groups know which Party butters their bread, and spending their free time plugging for the one that tends to support and pay them more is, IMO, highly inappropriate.  

 

 

So what we are saying is freedoms of speech and expression are not available to all Canadians. 

And lets be honest an attorney can or will use anything to make his or her case, it is their job to cast doubt on any witness, or arresting officer. And while i have not heard of this guy before, nor heard any of his pod cast, But being a professional he should be able to keep his opinions separate form his job.

Not a very good argument, that there is 10 times the amount of leftist who will discredit anything you say...Implying that the right should remain quite, and go along with the flow. I think that is how we ended up with all this leftist crap going that we have today.

I will agree that all of this topic could be express in a way to maintain a professional integrity, to both the job, and your opinions. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

How would you feel if you had a charismatic teacher posting anti-christianity videos online and being followed by a plurality of students?  

Anti-Christian ideology is the default dogma taught to kids in schools with Darwinism, sexual orientation and gender identity teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, they are not.  They are elected to provide good government, not use their position to push progressive ideology.  They are supposed to be governing for all Canadians, not just liberals or progressives.

Good government is subjective.  They tell Canadians what they want to do and what they're ideology is, and we decide if we want them to govern or not.  That's it.

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So in your way of thinking a police officer, teacher, or nurse does not have freedom of speech.  Obviously your claim is against the Charter of Rights which guarantees freedom of expression to everyone.  It doesn't exclude some people.

If I had a dollar for every time an ignorant goof who didn't understand the Charter tried to wave it cluelessly in my face on this site, I could probably by a new car.  If you knew anything about our Charter, you'd understand that Section 1 of it is the most important part. 

Unlimited freedom of speech is not guaranteed by our Charter.  

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are so badly brainwashed with progressive ideology that you can't see the problem.  You want to silence everyone who opposes it.

If you weren't so busy twisting your panties into a knot, you'd have realized that my previous post clearly highlighted the dangers of teachers (in particular) being able to do or say whatever they want online and indoctrinating our young people with *gasp* their progressive ideology.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

So what we are saying is freedoms of speech and expression are not available to all Canadians. 

No, I'm saying there are limits to it.  If you can agree that it's not acceptable for CAF Officers to record and promote videos of themselves marching in Goose-Step with red arm bands and raving about Jews, you should be able to appreciate that the quote above is poor and reductive reasoning.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

that my previous post clearly highlighted the dangers of teachers (in particular) being able to do or say whatever they want online and indoctrinating our young people with *gasp* their progressive ideology.  

Teachers are required by the government to teach progressive ideology to the students. They don't have to try to indoctrinate it online.  They are required to indoctrinate them in the education system using taxpayer dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Teachers are required by the government to teach progressive ideology to the students. They don't have to try to indoctrinate it online.  They are required to indoctrinate them in the education system using taxpayer dollars.

Teachers are directed to by government mandates to teach a curriculum in a professional setting.  They don't really have a choice in that.  

They are, however, discouraged and there are rules against them promoting or criticizing political parties in the classroom (and to a lesser extent online/in public).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,503
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    BuyAResearchPaper
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...