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

[Contrarian]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Michael is getting boring. You and me have different standards for how one should behave in law enforcement (federal) / intelligence industry and that's OK. 

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.

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. 

Clearly he puts the obsession for a politician above his career.  

Edited January 12 by Contrarian

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

You and me have different standards for how one should behave in law enforcement

You missed the main point entirely.  He was not using his position on the job to talk about politics on the internet.  He was on his own time, not in uniform, and not even identifying his occupation.  Therefore in those circumstances he should have the same freedom of expression as everyone else.  If some liberal, NDP, or CBC revealed his identity, that is not his fault and he should not suffer any consequences for the media's action.  Liberals, NDP and CBC, CTV have an agenda of their own.

[Contrarian]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You missed the main point entirely.  He was not using his position on the job to talk about politics on the internet.  He was on his own time, not in uniform, and not even identifying his occupation.  Therefore in those circumstances he should have the same freedom of expression as everyone else.  If some liberal, NDP, or CBC revealed his identity, that is not his fault and he should not suffer any consequences for the media's action.  Liberals, NDP and CBC, CTV have an agenda of their own.

It does not matter, when he was doing that he knew it was a risk. Society, not idealists like you look at law enforcement with some sort of standard and discipline. Is a circus. Even if it was the other way around, a liberal RCMP officer making fun obsessively of conservative politicians, I would have the same position. 

This is what you went to the academy, to engage with mediocre politicians? Trudeau is just a politician, one that will end his career in scandals, and for that you put up a circus online while your career is based on Ottawa. Is like spitting your employer in the face. 

But no ethic for the conservatives because it happened that he made fun of Trudeau at this time. 😄

Edited January 12 by Contrarian

[blackbird]

The Liberal government is now going after members of the Armed Forces who hold any unacceptable views as well.  they appointed a professional investigator to investigate the armed forces and come up with recommendations.

[blackbird]

The Canadian Anti-Racism and Research Society is getting in the action now.  Still haven't heard what he said that is "racist".  The news reported him as saying "... plays the role of a character he calls Father B, and professes to be 'the High Prophet of the Church of Trudeau' as he explains what the website is about, stating, 'our religion teaches the importance of socialism, of cancelling everyone that offends anyone, of being woke and highly emotional.'"

Absolutely nothing racist in that.  

[Moonbox]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

He was not using his position on the job to talk about politics on the internet.  He was on his own time, not in uniform, and not even identifying his occupation.  

It doesn't matter.  What he does in his own time reflects on who he is as a person and the type of people who work for the public service he represents.  If his off-duty behavior undermines public trust in his character, it's not appropriate. 

Can I ask you how you would feel if we found out that he was in crippling debt due to casino-gambling, or that he married a mafia boss's daughter, or burned a Bible and a Canadian flag online for one of his videos?

The point is that your personal and professional life cannot be fully segregated.  One leaks into and influences the other, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise.  

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It doesn't matter.  What he does in his own time reflects on who he is as a person and the type of people who work for the public service he represents.  If his off-duty behavior undermines public trust in his character, it's not appropriate. 

Can I ask you how you would feel if we found out that he was in crippling debt due to casino-gambling, or that he married a mafia boss's daughter, or burned a Bible and a Canadian flag online for one of his videos?

The point is that your personal and professional life cannot be fully segregated.  One leaks into and influences the other, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise.  

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

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.

Edited January 12 by blackbird

[Contrarian]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The Canadian Anti-Racism and Research Society is getting in the action now.  Still haven't heard what he said that is "racist".  The news reported him as saying "... plays the role of a character he calls Father B, and professes to be 'the High Prophet of the Church of Trudeau' as he explains what the website is about, stating, 'our religion teaches the importance of socialism, of cancelling everyone that offends anyone, of being woke and highly emotional.'"

Absolutely nothing racist in that.  

Yes, people are bringing racism in the discussion because is trendy controversial topic. 

My main argument was about behaviour of one that works for a federal agency as an agent in relation to the political climate.

Standards, ethics and professionalism.  Is called again, Work Ethics. 

Yours is fear mongering. As I said probably nothing illegal, some people are for him, some people are against him depending on ideology.

@Aristides is right, some of the stuff is comical, so is he a buffoon or an agent? 

Edited January 12 by Contrarian

[Moonbox]

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.  

 

[Michael Hardner]

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.

 

[Contrarian]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

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. 

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

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. 

Edited January 12 by Contrarian

[Michael Hardner]

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 ?

[Contrarian]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. What trans woman ?  I don't think there is one in the example.

Michael I read information fast, I misunderstood that post, my apologies.

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? 

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

Talk Show or Radio Host, chose the wrong profession is my rant 😄

Edited January 12 by Contrarian

[Zeitgeist]

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 January 12 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

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.
 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

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.  

False again.  

[blackbird]

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.

[blackbird]

Trudeau's progressive multiculturalism no one may question.

 

[Moonbox]

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.  

 

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[Moonbox]

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 January 12 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[Moonbox]

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.  

[taxme]

20 hours ago, blackbird said:

Apparently it was the CBC who discovered his identity and revealed it.

B.C. RCMP officer's anti-Trudeau website raises concerns about discriminatory views within the RCMP (yahoo.com)

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. 😒

[PIK]

He has a right to do what he wants, i guess. But being a police officer, he should have known better, that's the problem.