Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are grasping for straws now, making up nonsense.   Nothing he said or did was illegal.  He simply exercised his freedom of expression.

Nobody is saying he did anything illegal, nor is he being charged with anything criminal.  Who's grasping at straws here? ?

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I have news for you.  All your excuses for opposing his freedom of expression simply confirm what I believe about it.  He is in the right.

I know.  You're not actually here to debate anything, but instead to rant angrily and ignorantly about things you find upsetting about the world you live in.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. Michael is getting boring.
2. You and me have different standards for how one should behave in law enforcement (federal) / intelligence industry and that's OK. 
3. I don't think is against the law, not sure how this will be handled, I am voicing my disapproval regardless on how many times you are going to spin the conversation or add extra fake words.
4. Capitalism is available for all, I actually suggest this young fellow quits his job and starts making the big $ by trolling Liberals as a TV host. 

 

1. I'm boring like a sleeping cheetah.  I lie await for a long time, and just when you don't suspect it I... I.... zzzzzzzzzz....
2. Is it ok ?  It's rather shocking when reasonable people disagree especially on here.
3. Honestly I'm not trying to mischaracterize your argument.  I don't mean to say disagreeing with your boss is against the law, either.  But you should face reprimand if you cross lines and even dismissal.
4. I'm starting to think I would have to watch this awful looking video to understand why people are against him.

But I am very reluctant to let people lose their jobs because of political expression.  Did you know that a University Professor in Manitoba was removed for expressing a private opinion (in a letter) against the Prime Minister, long ago ?

And in the UK someone was let go because they expressed an opinion that trans women weren't women.  They didn't work for government but for a study group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Forstater

Please don't think I believe that these cases are EASY to pick through.  I don't, and that's why I wouldn't disagree strongly with your opinion nor would I ridicule it.  The only people I would ridicule are those who heartlessly think there's an obvious answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. I can't place the same standards in my thinking for law enforcement/intelligence community which works for a federal government vs a university professor/trans woman from a study group. 

2. Will be inclined to stand with the university professor and the trans woman but will not render my support for this agent. 

3. If you can't respect your profession, there is always to do what you love. There should be no place for amateurs close to national/domestic security is my view. Clearly this one has a talent for comedy, will have followers, brother @blackbird will follow him, he can make millions if he launches the website as a civilian. I am for supporting new ideas in capitalism. 

1. Well the standards are not the same but the principles should be.  I would articulate that is:
"Unless there's a significant impact on my professional life, I should be allowed to express myself.  If I tresspass on this principle, there may be impacts on my employment"
2. What trans woman ?  I don't think there is one in the example.
3. Again I have NOT seen the video.  I am still open to convincing: what specifically does this person say that is unprofessional ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadians are only allowed to have one political perspective.  If they criticize the government they lose their jobs or are disciplined and forced to make apologies. Free speech is dead in Canada. The recent court orders compelling speech are straight out of Stalin’s USSR.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

 

1. What is the University's decision which I don't agree with and this person being let go out of this group has to do with me not agreeing with the Ethics, Professionalism and let me steal that term again "Impartiality" of this specific agent? 

2. He didn't do anything illegal, but I think in the eyes of the public, he is not viewed the same.

3. Of course he will be viewed by conservatives as a hero, but is that the job of a federal agent? To be viewed only by one segment of the population as a hero? Or to be a buffoon on the internet? 

 

1. It's about your rights to free expression balanced against your employer's goals.
2. Should he be allowed to wear a turban ?  A dress ?  A moustache ?  These have all been disallowed in the past on the view of how the officer may be 'viewed' by 'the public'
3. I don't think he's a hero.  The people who have a good day because Trudeau tripped over a step should be ignored and excluded from "the" public that we refer to.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has the right to speak against the government on social media in whatever way they choose.  Policemen have been murdered by the catch and release court system controlled by the Liberal government.  Anyone should be able to understand why a policeman would be interested in opposing Trudeau in his spare time and that is a fundamental right in a free and democratic society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 I would articulate that is:
"Unless there's a significant impact on my professional life, I should be allowed to express myself.  If I tresspass on this principle, there may be impacts on my employment"

That's an entirely subjective judgment.  I think the better way of thinking is this:

"What I do and say reflects on me as a person, therefore as a professional, and by extension the organizations I belong to." 

As a business owner, I have to watch what I say and what my employees/associates say.  Talking politics are fine to an extent, but there's a certain measure of respect and restraint implicitly expected.  I'm likely to lose clients by ranting about divisive issues online, and nobody will care about whether or not I did it in my private time. My clients can choose to move on from someone who not only doesn't share (or who opposes) their values, but who also doesn't have the common sense or good judgement to keep it to themselves.  

In the public sector, I'd argue that the standards should be higher.  Not only can aggressive mouthpieces undermine public trust (and therefore cooperation) in their communities, you can also set yourself at war with your administration.  If the RCMP, for example, has enough tools ranting about the Trudeau government online, and this continues for any length of time, the Commissioner may find himself/herself in an acrimonious relationship with the Minister of Public Safety, who may embrace public outcries against the police, set up committees or investigations into conduct, and generally make their lives miserable. 

This is just an example, and one among countless.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moonbox said:

1. That's an entirely subjective judgment.  I think the better way of thinking is this:

"What I do and say reflects on me as a person, therefore as a professional, and by extension the organizations I belong to." 

2. As a business owner, I have to watch what I say and what my employees/associates say.  Talking politics are fine to an extent, but there's a certain measure of respect and restraint implicitly expected.  I'm likely to lose clients by ranting about divisive issues online, and nobody will care about whether or not I did it in my private time. My clients can choose to move on from someone who not only doesn't share (or who opposes) their values, but who also doesn't have the common sense or good judgement to keep it to themselves.  

3. In the public sector, I'd argue that the standards should be higher.  Not only can aggressive mouthpieces undermine public trust (and therefore cooperation) in their communities, you can also set yourself at war with your administration. 

4. If the RCMP, for example, has enough tools ranting about the Trudeau government online, and this continues for any length of time, the Commissioner may find himself/herself in an acrimonious relationship with the Minister of Public Safety 

 

1. Ok, sure but also subjective.  It's all subjective.  Jordan Peterson is at risk of having his licensed removed.  He says it's because he supports Poilievre.  Others say it's because he Tweets that fat women are ugly, and as a mental health professional he is creating a negative environment for patients, giving a negative reputation for therapists etc.

I can't disagree with your definition but it's subjective as is mine.  Most difficult things to define are.

2. "extent" "measure" etc.  Again I did NOT watch his video and maybe that's why I am more circumspect than you(se)

3.  I agree that it's subjective.  This business of bringing ill repute onto ones employer, though.  Can the convenience store worker in my neighbourhood wear a "Poilievre" button ?  How about when not at work ?  Subjective...

4. Maybe it's the "ranting" part I don't get... is he actually yelling like a lunatic ?  That would play into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, sure but also subjective.  It's all subjective.  Jordan Peterson is at risk of having his licensed removed.  He says it's because he supports Poilievre.  Others say it's because he Tweets that fat women are ugly, and as a mental health professional he is creating a negative environment for patients, giving a negative reputation for therapists etc.

Of course it's subjective.  You may recall years ago how much time I spent defending Jordan Peterson in debates with you.  I've since fallen more in line with your thinking, viewing the man as a sellout edge-lord doing little more than getting in front of the angry mooks and pretending to lead them.  If his license is revoked it's because he abandoned any pretense of professional psychology years ago.  

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. "extent" "measure" etc.  Again I did NOT watch his video and maybe that's why I am more circumspect than you(se)

I didn't watch it either, but I read nothing about him being fired, so the debate at this point really doesn't go any further than whether his online shenanigans are appropriate.  

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3.  I agree that it's subjective.  This business of bringing ill repute onto ones employer, though.  Can the convenience store worker in my neighbourhood wear a "Poilievre" button ?  How about when not at work ?  Subjective...

Sure, but that's a bit of a straw-man isn't it?  If you can find me any convenience store clerks getting fired for wearing PP buttons while off-duty, or anything even resembling that, we can talk about that, otherwise all this does is provide a scenario both of us would find unreasonable for discipline.  

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Maybe it's the "ranting" part I don't get... is he actually yelling like a lunatic ?  That would play into it.

Doesn't really matter.  In his case, it seems to be satire and mockery, which in many instances is just as bad or worse.  I can't imagine a lot of the LGBTQ folks in the man's community are thrilled with the idea of having him answer their call to 911.  

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

36 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

1. Of course it's subjective.  You may recall years ago how much time I spent defending Jordan Peterson in debates with you.  I've since fallen more in line with your thinking, viewing the man as a sellout edge-lord doing little more than getting in front of the angry mooks and pretending to lead them.  If his license is revoked it's because he abandoned any pretense of professional psychology years ago.  

2. I didn't watch it either, but I read nothing about him being fired, so the debate at this point really doesn't go any further than whether his online shenanigans are appropriate.  

3. Sure, but that's a bit of a straw-man isn't it?  If you can find me any convenience store clerks getting fired for wearing PP buttons while off-duty, or anything even resembling that, we can talk about that, otherwise all this does is provide a scenario both of us would find unreasonable for discipline.  

4.  I can't imagine a lot of the LGBTQ folks in the man's community are thrilled with the idea of having him answer their call to 911.  

1. I don't remember, but my thinking is also changed.  When you read the thoughts of his boosters, they're usually quite naive.  Another way to see that is idealistic.  And therefore with some changes they could make real change.  The US elected Obama back to back with Trump.

2. Ok.

3. Well people are getting fired for opinions on the principle that they bring disrepute to their employers.  Coming up with hypothetical examples that could happen isn't that hard.  People get fired for the bumper stickers on their cars.

4. He should be warned if he's disparaging groups in the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't remember, but my thinking is also changed.  When you read the thoughts of his boosters, they're usually quite naive.  Another way to see that is idealistic.  And therefore with some changes they could make real change.  The US elected Obama back to back with Trump.

It was probably 6-8 years ago, regarding the Lyndsey Shephard debacle at Laurier.  I thought Peterson was great back then.  You already had moved on decided he was a sellout.  

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Well people are getting fired for opinions on the principle that they bring disrepute to their employers.  Coming up with hypothetical examples that could happen isn't that hard.  People get fired for the bumper stickers on their cars.

Sometimes it's an absurd overreaction, and sometimes it's not.  If we take it on a case by case basis, as you say, we should be able to come to reasonable conclusions, but sadly both sides are prone to extreme hyperbole.  

Either way, I think public servants should be held to a higher standard, particularly considering how much job security they have and that many of the folks they may be "disparaging" are taxpayers and citizens whose job it is to serve.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, blackbird said:

What he said was done on his own time. Cannot an RCMP officer have a right to his own opinion on his own time. What he said should have no bearing on him in his doing his job. Does this mean that if I criticize someone on my own time, off from work, could I lose my job because the boss did not like to hear my personal view on something? 

At least we now know that we have one smart thinking cop around who sees the WEF Marxist in Ottawa for what he is. Pretty much a liar and a thief. This has nothing to do with any discriminatory views but just another honest Canadian calling it out as he sees fit. But I do know that here in Marxist Canada we know that cops like him will no doubt be paying the price for his daring to speak freely. ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canadians are only allowed to have one political perspective.  If they criticize the government they lose their jobs or are disciplined and forced to make apologies. Free speech is dead in Canada. The recent court orders compelling speech are straight out of Stalin’s USSR.

Nonsense, I criticize the government all the time and I still have my job.   I even require official government certification for my job too so it would be really easy to cancel me.

Why haven't they?  Here I'll even do it again...Trudeau is a silly little dilettante and the Liberal Party is as corrupt as the day is long.

$10 bucks says I'll still have my job in the morning.

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

3 hours ago, Contrarian said:

The only requirement is to not like a politician?

Congratulations!  Did you finally figure out political preferences is matter of choosing the least evil?  Seems to me Trudeau doesn't like his opposition.  He often smears them.  So how is that any different?  Sounds hypocritical to say he doesn't like a politician.  That's how most politicians operate.  Exactly the same.  That's politics in the real world.

3 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Double the points for being a buffoon on the internet?

Pretty clever buffoon.  He is brilliant.  That's why the liberals won't like him.  He knows how to be most effective.

Whatever occupation he is in, he is a brilliant asset.  Very clever.  He likely has a lot of respect for his occupation or profession. 

Would you rather have a dumb puppet who can't think for himself and won't say a word about what is going on in the world or a brilliant thinker like him?  I would pick him.  He gets five stars for his originality.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

but ethics says you don't bite the hand that feeds you

How is he biting the hand that feeds him?  He would have to be talking about the RCMP which he isn't.  He is talking about politicians just like everyone else does.  That's his right under the basic fundamental freedom of expression, which you scoff at and reject.

How about Trudeau and the liberals show some respect for the police by not letting dangerous criminals out onto the streets repeatedly to take the lives of innocent policemen?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

If this fella started a Go-Fund Me campaign for his legal defence, I'm sure a fortune would be contributed across Canada.

Yes, and dumdums all over would probably still contribute, even though there are no legal charges against him, nor (as far as I can see), even any formal discipline.  So far all that's happened is that someone pointed it out, and the community is questioning how appropriate it is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

Nonsense, I criticize the government all the time and I still have my job.   I even require official government certification for my job too so it would be really easy to cancel me.

Why haven't they?  Here I'll even do it again...Trudeau is a silly little dilettante and the Liberal Party is as corrupt as the day is long.

$10 bucks says I'll still have my job in the morning.

No one knows who the f@k Eyeball is.  Besides, you’re a communist, so you get full party protection.  

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Nonsense, I criticize the government all the time and I still have my job.   I even require official government certification for my job too so it would be really easy to cancel me.

Why haven't they?  Here I'll even do it again...Trudeau is a silly little dilettante and the Liberal Party is as corrupt as the day is long.

$10 bucks says I'll still have my job in the morning.

You don’t work for government in a position where you have authority over public citizens. You aren’t a civil servant. In my job I knew I would be subject to discipline if my actions were seen to harm my company’s image or reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You don’t work for government in a position where you have authority over public citizens. You aren’t a civil servant. In my job I knew I would be subject to discipline if my actions were seen to harm my company’s image or reputation.

I'm subject to that at work too.  Note however the way Zeitgeist worded the post I responded too.  He specified Canadians  in the context of Stalin - presumably he means every Canadian is subject to being fired. His back-peddling comment No one knows who the f@k Eyeball is  does not cut it given how he's associated Stalin with things. The Stalinesque dictatorships Zeitgeist constantly refers throughout this forum make a very express point of knowing who the f@k everyone is and especially when they're criticizing them.  

This is not just unthinking hyperbole Zeitgeist is engaging in - call him out a little and he'll back-peddle a little but it's very difficult to not think on some level it's all very real to him.  

It's bad enough when posters read stuff that was never said in between lines of posts they respond to but does that mean I'm supposed to read a bunch of benefit-of-doubt into theirs or worse do their back-peddling for them?  If this is just a sloppy off-hand imprecise way of talking or joking that shouldn't be taken seriously put sarcasm/off at the end of it or something. 

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
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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