Why don't you sue Harper? In Federal Court? For declaratory and injunctive relief. To force Harper to take the gags off the public service and the armed forces. To allow free communications between the public at large and the public servants and service men and women we pay through our taxes.
It's well documented that the Harper PMO has the public service and armed forces gagged. Between them and the public he has insinuated what are fairly described as political commissars. They decide what communications from the public may pass through to the public and armed services and which may not. They also "craft" (their word, not mine) responses to those communications so that they comport with government policy. In other words, when we are allowed to ask a question or raise a point, the answer we may expect to get is one warped by Harper's political filters. They filter what questions may be asked and they filter what responses may be given.
In other words, the Harper regime has transformed both the armed forces and the public service into his private political agencies. He has politicized the public service. He has harnessed the public service and the armed forces into his service when they are, in fact, supposed to be in service to Canada. He has compelled them to do his partisan bidding.
And, bear in mind, Harper knows full well what he's doing. That much is apparent from this passage from a letter he wrote in 2001 while heading the National Citizens Coalition:
"Iron-fisted bully tactics have no place in a free and democratic society. Information is power. The less control the government has over the flow of information, the less control it can exert over its citizens."
What Harper is saying is that the more control the government (he) has over the flow of information, the more control it (he) can exert over its us, you and me. And that plainly accounts for the utterly Stalinist, "iron-fisted" communications policy he implemented to create an information drawbridge isolating the public from the public service. It's a policy that he admits has "no place in a free and democratic society." And he's right which means what he's been doing since taking power is utterly wrong.
Mr. Harper, tear down that wall.
7 comments:
I'm not a lawyer, but maybe, if you live in one of the "scammed" ridings, maybe you could sue Stevie and the CPC personally for violating your civil rights under the Canadian Constitution. Canadians are not used to thinking about their Constitution.
The problem with that, Ed, is proof. How do you prove that a) you received such a communication, and b) that Harper or his party is directly responsible for that. Perhaps Elections Canada can establish those things but they would have an enormous job requiring no small measure of luck to get there. Who knows, there could be a smoking gun but there's usually sufficient "plausible deniability" built into these scams from the outset.
Harper's communications policy, however, is out in the open. It's easy to shine a spotlight on that. One thing he would fear most is the public learning what sort of communications were placed "off limits" for discussion. What didn't get through is probably more of an eye-opener than what did.
Harper's communications policy is powerfully subverting our democracy.
People are speaking up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-7OdXL7yAU&feature=email
This should be needed evidence which Elections Canada can pursue.
It's going to take some brave civil servants to tell us what didn't get through the Harper filter, Mound. That's asking a lot of someone with a family and a mortgage.
Let's hope there are some people left who -- either because the kids and the mortgage are gone -- or because they can't sleep at night, lift the veil.
Actually Mound, you do have the capability. However, why write..Why don't you sue Harper? In Federal Court? For declaratory and injunctive relief. To force Harper to take the gags off the public service and the armed forces."...and then say "The problem with that, Ed, is proof. How do you prove that a) you received such a communication, and b) that Harper or his party is directly responsible for that." Why write it in the first place?
Anyong, I was hoping to pique the interest of some of the young lawyers on progblogs or liblogs who are in Ontario or even Ottawa. I'm a damned good distance from any Federal Court and would have great difficulty in responding to motions, etc. from here. Besides it's been years since I practised and I'm not even sure what procedural and substantive law would be applicable to this. A writ of mandamus? I think they've done away with those. No, this is a job for someone well versed in current FCC practice.\
My comments to Ed were not in the context of this post but his suggestion that Harper be sued over the robocall fiasco. I stand by my remarks. No one has implicated Harper and no court would act against him on that basis. It's apples and oranges.
What about defamation of character for them calling us foreign radical enemies of Canada, or for Toews calling us child pornographers?
Post a Comment