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.

Openness And Transparency: Not In Harperland

The gulf between the open and reasonable persona Stephen Harper tried to convey during last week's debate and the Nixonian truth about the man is a yawning one indeed. Until and unless Canadians become widely aware of that reality, there is still very much a chance that he could win the upcoming election, an eventuality many are fighting hard to prevent.

I suspect that even if people are not really that interested in politics, they expect their elected representatives, especially their prime minister, to be open and reasonably accessible, especially during an election campaign. They might be surprised to learn that this is not the case with Stephen Harper and his cabal.

While it has been reported in alternative media, the fact that a vetting process is in place for anyone wishing to attend an event where Harper is present (no one can attend without an invitation) is not widely known; the MSM has made little mention of it. However, we now learn that there are several other restrictions being imposed on those who wish to touch the hem of Dear Leader's garment:

Members of the public who attend Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s campaign events are being required to agree to a gag order before they can walk through the door, iPolitics has learned.

While attendance is by invitation only, and attendees are vetted by the Conservative Party before receiving a ticket, those who want to attend a campaign event in person are also being asked to agree to a number of conditions including not to transmit any description of the event or any images from it.

In a move more befitting a totalitarian regime than a democratic society, hopeful attendees must cast aside any semblance of self-respect and the accustomed rights of citizenship and embrace the following:

“Holder (of the confirmation of registration) is prohibited from transmitting or aiding in transmitting any description, account, picture or reproduction of the Event,” according to information contained on the invitation website for an event Harper is planning in Brampton East on Monday.

A Tweet or a Facebook posting? Don't even think about it.

“Holder and his/her belongings may be searched upon entry, and Holder consents to such searches and waives any related claims that might arise against Conservative Fund Canada, the Electoral District Association concerned, and the facility. If the Holder elects not to consent to these searches, Holder will be denied entry to the facility.”

For anyone who might chaff under such restrictions and contemplate rebelling, a strong warning about the futility of resistance is being issued:

“The confirmation of registration and entry to the event is a revocable licence: it may be withdrawn, admission refused or Holder expelled from the premises at any time for any reason without recourse by Holder.”

The contrast with the NDP and the Liberals is jarring:

Other parties often encourage participants to tweet comments or photos from party rallies, sometimes even asking them to use a particular hashtag in a bid to build social media buzz around an event.

An NDP official said the party’s campaign events with NDP Leader Tom Mulcair do not have any prohibition on transmitting comments or photos.

“People are invited to bring their friends and are encouraged to take photos and share their experiences however they choose.”

Olivier Duchesneau, spokesman for the Liberal Party, said his party’s events are open to everyone because Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau wants to meet “as many Canadians as possible.”

It has often been said that people get the government they deserve. Let us hope there are not too many voters out there who enjoy being treated with suspicion, disdain, condescension and contempt by a national leader who pretends to be representing their best interests.

The Emperor clearly has no clothes.

Rick Mercer Assesses Andrew Scheer's Job Performance

Unsurprisingly, the House Speaker gets a failing grade.

My two favourite lines:

“Show me one person who believes he’s done a good job on the decorum front. 308 meth addicts on the dance floor have better manners.”

"We [should] replace the Speaker with a bag of flour with a smiley face drawn on the front with a sharpie.”

The CBC Ombudsman Makes Her Ruling

As reported by Andrew Mitrovica on iPolitiics, the CBC ombudsman, Esther Enkin, has finally reached her decision on the many conflict of interest complaints lodged against Rex Murphy and Peter Mansbridge.

Briefly, here is what she said:

“Given that Journalistic Standards and Practices spells out a commitment to independence, and the Conflict of Interest guidelines encompass perception of conflict as well, it is inconsistent with policy when CBC news and current affairs staff accept payment from groups that are likely to be in the news.

She has a somewhat timid suggestion for CBC management:

“But since taking money leads to a perception of a conflict of interest, CBC management might want to consider, in the review they are undertaking, whether even with disclosure, it is appropriate for CBC news and current affairs staff to get paid for their speaking engagements.

“To summarize, in the course of reviewing its policy, I hope CBC management will reconsider the practice of paid speaking engagements for its journalists and, at a minimum, consider how any relevant activity and payment can be on the public record.”

As Mitovica tartly points out,

Enkin’s ruling is a stinging rebuke of Mansbridge and Murphy — who, since the controversy broke in iPolitics, have not only been unapologetic about receiving payment from outside vested-interest groups, but have also vowed to continue the controversial practice despite mounting criticism and condemnation.

The ombudsman's full report can be read here.

Will anything change as a result of this finding? Given the fierce recalcitrance of Rex Murphy, more a legend in his mind than in anyone else's, I am dubious. But one hopes that the CBC will show a shred of its rapidly diminishing integrity and issue Newfoundland's favorite son an ultimatum.

After all, given Rex's apparent popularity with the tarsand enthusiasts, he should have no problem keeping body and soul together by continuing to be a shill for the petroleum industry.

The Harper Government: Abuses Of A Nixonian Character

That is the description that Lawrence Martin applies to the Harper government in his latest column for iPolitics as he reflects on the vital and valiant role journalism played in uncovering the Watergate Scandal 40 years ago.

However, while acknowledging some bright spots, Martin laments the unevenness of the contemporary Canadian journalistic landscape in holding the Harper regime to account. Especially interesting is that while lauding some efforts, he withholds any praise from his own employer, The Globe and Mail, which will not come as a surprise to those who see it as little more than an apologist for a Prime Minister drunk on his own power.

As is always the case, this latest piece by Martin is well-worth the read.