Openness And Transparency: An Update

Recently I wrote a post about the very stringent and restrictive conditions imposed upon those who would attend gatherings featuring Stephen Harper. Not only are all potential attendees vetted and issued a ticket, but it was reported that they had to agree to a gag order, a virtual embargo on information and pictures from the gathering.

Now the Tories are changing their tune, perhaps stung by the public reaction to measures, as I noted earlier, that seem more appropriate to a totalitarian state than a democratic one.

That ubiquitous gadfly, Conservative party spokesman Kory Teneycke, now assures us it was all just a big misunderstanding, at least the part about the embargo on information. He now says

that the requirement was a “legal boilerplate” that some lawyer “cribbed” for the ticket’s disclaimer – but that ultimately meant nothing.

“We’ve removed it,” he said of the disclaimer. “It was never intended. It was never enforced.

“We encourage people to take pictures and use social media at our events.”

The restrictions on admission, however, remain, inviting widespread scorn for the PM's fear of Canadians:

“It sends a message that the leader is trying to avoid questions and challenges to the Conservative party’s platform and ideas,” said Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“To not be open to debating the public during an election campaign is definitely anti-democratic. That’s what the election is supposed to be all about.”

But in the skewed world of Harperland, such restrictions are reasonable:

Teneycke said Monday there is nothing wrong with the practice, insisting that while the Conservatives do restrict public attendance at some events, that doesn’t tell the whole story.

In what surely must be adjudged a parody of democratic openness and accessibility, the serial apologist for all things Conservative said that

Harper does meet average Canadians on the trail every day at places such as a local bakery or shopping malls, such as the one he visited in Scarborough Monday.

He cited an instance where Harper went to a grocery store to buy sandwiches, ordered his lunch, and “sat around taking pictures and chatting with people at the store.

“This notion that people can’t come up to the prime minister is nonsense.”

What Tenecke doesn't mention, of course, is the fact that these photo-op sites are rigorously pre-screened to ensure they are Tory-friendly.

Engaging in the favourite of Tory pastimes, revising history, the Conservative puppet averred that

it’s only logical that such events be restricted to Conservatives, adding that this is how it’s been done in elections dating back to at least 2008.

Tom Flanagan, a former Conservative insider,

said the practice is new. “Message events have always been constructed this way, but not rallies.”

Flanagan said the new policy may have a “security aspect,” noting last October’s attack by a gunman on Parliament Hill.

“Or maybe it’s more about message control. If there is even one vocal protester at an event, the cameras will pan on him and the message will be lost.”

Or, heaven forfend, he or she might ask a real question. That would never do in Harperland.

Like A Festering Pustule That Refuses To Heal

Perennial posterior pain K(T)ory Teneycke just won't go away. Currently a Conservative Party campaign spokesman, he once again appears to be out of his depth.

In the following video, which gets really interesting at the four-minute mark, a principled Tom Clark pursues the irritating gnat over his party's use of terrorist imagery in its latest political ad, an apparent contravention of his leader's Bill C-51 anti-terror legislation. You will see that Teneycke is no match for the tenacious Clark.

Ethical Politicians – A Contemporary Oxymoron

While I know that I am hardly alone in harbouring a deep cynicism about almost all politicians, sometimes their lack of moral fibre is made apparent, not by way of spectacular revelations, as in the Liberal sponsorship scandal or the sordid Mulroney-Schreiber affair, but in much more subtle ways, such as the personal choices they make.

This occurred to me last evening while I continued to digest in small amounts, as mentioned in a previous post, Lawence Martin's Harperland. The passage pertained to the televised debate in 2008 between Harper, Dion, Duceppe and Elizabeth May. The rules stipulated that participants could not bring notes for the exchange, although they were permitted to write down notes during the debate. During both the French and English debates, Green Party leader May, seated beside Harper, noticed the Prime Minister, below table level (doesn't that bring back memories of less than apt high schoolers?) using 'cheat sheets,' describing them as “small index cards with reprinted font all over them.” Because she lacked the confidence to confront Harper, she said nothing.

After stepping down as Harper's communication director, the sometimes ethically-challenged Kory Teneycke, in reference to the cheating, responded with the kind of misdirection we've come to expect from the Conservatives: ”...who cares? ...She's just lucky she was in the room.... The process was poorly served by her presence.”

Both Harper's dishonest behaviour and Tenecke's dismissal of its significance reveal much about the kind of government operated by the Harper regime.