Sunday, September 13, 2015

Harper's Message Control



Some might call it extortion. Others, a gag order. Some would perhaps be more comfortable with the term loyalty oath. Whatever the label, however, one thing is clear: in Harperland, those who vie to carry the party's electoral banner must agree to give up some basic freedoms or pay a heavy penalty.

iPolitics reports the following:
Unsuccessful nomination candidates risk losing a $1,000 “Good Conduct Bond” they were required to post with the Conservative Party when they applied to seek a nomination if they do anything the party decides doesn’t meet its criteria for good conduct. If, however, they meet the party’s test they get their $1,000 back at the end of this election campaign.
While many apparently pay this admission price with no qualms, perhaps in the hope of proving their worthiness as seals-in-training, others are troubled by it. Said a former nomination candidate,
"It is anti-democratic and highly controlling: entirely inconsistent with how a Parliamentary democracy is supposed to work,” iPolitics was told. “An MP is expected to represent a constituency and should be free to express their views as well as his or her own. The system was never meant to function by squelching free speech by the edict of one man.”

“How is anyone supposed to bring up new ideas? And how can you test ideas if debate is forbidden.”
Apparently this anonymous source doesn't seem to appreciate the authoritarian dynamics that permeate the Harper party of one, dynamics that have rendered it a such a fossilized parody of a democratic entity.

This 'good conduct bond' originated in 2006, and while definitions of conduct are not given, certain specific prohibitions are outlined:
I will not seek the nomination of another political party, or run as an independent candidate, and will not endorse, campaign for or publicly support any opposing candidate or political party, in the next federal election,” reads a copy of the declaration obtained by iPolitics.

“I further confirm that following the nomination process, when the nominated candidate resulting from the process contests the election, I will take no steps, and make no comments whether public or amongst Party personnel or members which could be interpreted or understood to oppose the nominated candidate in any way.”
Inky Mark, a former Reform Party and Canadian Alliance MP who is running in this election as an independent, assumes this gag order bond was imposed by Harper:
"He doesn’t want any backlash, any criticism of the process, nothing. He just doesn’t want any negative commentary. It’s just his idea of controlling everything, everything around him.”
And it is precisely that proclivity, applied to the entire country, that increasing numbers of Canadians are finding odious as they prepare to vote in the upcoming election.

8 comments:

  1. Sound remarkably like an "in and out" scheme to me Lorne, besides being highly questionable from a democratic standpoint. I wonder how those "expenses" will be reported to Elections Canada?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An excellent point, Rural. I hadn't thought of that.

      Delete
  2. Canadians have to start asking Lorne, why all of the information which should be readily available to Canadians is instead stifled and blocked by Harper. They have to start asking how they allowed this profoundly insecure man to acquire so much power over us. This is the Canadian Government, not Harpers play thing that he moulds and shapes to his own satisfaction. This is our country. Harper works for us, not the other way around. Canadians need to take ownership. If Harper had been hired in private industry he would have been fired the first month.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is indeed more than passing strange, Pamela, that being elected translates into an arrogant contempt thereafter for the electorate in Harperland.

      Delete
  3. Absolute control, Lorne, is ultimately a sign of cowardice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Harper qualifies for that designation on several fronts, doesn't he, Owen.

      Delete
  4. Michael Chong did not address this in his "Reform" bill that finally passed after it had been almost totally defanged. Another piece of evidence that the Michael Chong bill was nothing but show. He had to know that other parties did not require this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good point, Anon. Many say Chong made too many compromises to get his bill passed.

      Delete