Category Archives: Elections Canada

Will #Harper’s #DumpsterFire Result in 3rd Place Ashes? #cdnpoli #elxn42 #CanadaVotes #DumpHarper #StopHarper

Tick, Tock… The clock has now struck 9:30 EDT.

Tick, Tock… The Jays are in the lead!

Tick, Tock… Atlantic Canada seems to have chosen to DumpHarper! en masse!

Tick, Tock… Now that the big numbers are set to be counted in the heartlands, time will tell how far they will drop.

Tick, Tock… Can this sudden Crimson Tide be balanced with a quality opposition?

#Harpers #DumpsterFire 2015
#Harpers #DumpsterFire 2015

Be sure to join us on Fbook –> https://www.facebook.com/DumpHarper.

Tick, Tock…


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

@acoyne Adds Fuel to #Harper’s #DumpsterFire as @ezralevant rushes in:) #cdnpoli #elxn42 #DumpHarper #StopHarper

Yikes, that’s gotta really hurt, eh? But seriously, we covered this earlier this morning and provided some historical educational material as well. BTW: Who actually takes anything published via Postmedia seriously anyway considering they will go to extreme lengths to censor, scrub and remove any and all truths about Dear Leader Harper and his misfit ReformaCon Regime. Oddly enough, we have been cataloging these Ministry of Truth tactics for several years and believe us when we say, it’s not just Postmedia News or the other so called “right-wing” propaganda outlets, CBC News and the so-called “left-wing” nuts are all the same. Protecting the fear-mongering, war-mongering third rate (at best) Despot is not only job number 1 and it’s the only job in town.

Before we review the latest tweetorama, before you cast your ballot and since the entire thread of tweets is MIA in the “other” articles, start looking at who else has jumped ship ’cause when “lawyers” jump ship, unlike media folks who need a story, it’s goin’ down swiftly and then be sure to check out our archives for lot’s of archived evidence of media manipulation and propaganda in action.

Be sure pay close attention to how many turncoat ReformaCons are lashing out against a CONSERVATIVE! Now, join in and let your views be heard ’round the world…


So anyway… I have resigned as editor of Editorials and Comment for the National Post, effective immediately. I will remain a columnist.


2. Postmedia executives and I had a professional disagreement. Their view was that the publication of a column by the editorial page editor…


3. … dissenting from the Post’s endorsement of the Conservatives would have confused readers and embarrassed the paper.


4. My view was that that was what I was paid to do as a columnist: give my honest opinion on issues of public interest.


5. I don’t see public disagreement as confusing. I see it as honest. Readers, in my view, are adults & understand that adults can disagree.


*6. The confusion, if any, would have been to have left the impression that the paper’s views were mine, or that my views were the paper’s.


7. To be clear, the owners and managers of a newspaper have a perfect right to set the paper’s editorial line as they wish.


8. Likewise they have a perfect right to decide who and what they wish to publish in their pages.


9. Nobody has a God-given right to be published and the country will get along very well without me telling them how to vote.


10. My concerns were and are merely a) that there should be no suggestion that I was personally endorsing or voting for the Conservatives.


11. And b) that I could not do my job as a columnist if I was obliged to stay silent where these conflicted with those of management.


12. While Postmedia’s intervention was unprecedented in my experience, I could not allow the precedent to stand.


13. So to protect my reputation and to preserve my editorial freedom as a columnist, I felt it necessary to resign the editorial position.


14. I think that’s all I need to say on the subject. If anyone’s still interested, I will be voting for the NDP candidate in my riding.


15. The short-form reasoning: the Conservatives don’t deserve to be re-elected, and the Liberals don’t deserve a majority.


Finally, my prediction: Airheads 143 Fascists 116 Commies 71 Traitors 5 Ewoks 2 Unabombers 1 (#rathagainstthemachine – oh let me dream…).



Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#Harper’s 2013 #DumpsterFire Flashback: Op-Ed: Stephen Harper puts Conservatives in a bind. #cdnpoli #elxn42

Since so many “conservatives” and former supporters of the Harper Regime have either been tossed under the bus or simply jumped off the omnibus, let’s dig through our archives and take a trip down memory lane, since it appears as if the yellow journalists at Postmedia are still busy heavily censoring and restricting access to past articles that cast their ideologically driven despot Stephen Harper into the negative spotlight.

That being stated, please take a few moments to review the following op-ed(s) published in late November 2013 by former conservative communications consultant David Sachs in the Ottawa Citizen. It should be worth noting, and we have, the censored Ottawa Citizen version of the op-ed compared to the version published via the Times Colonist on 29 November 2013…

CENSORED Op-Ed: Stephen Harper puts Conservatives in a bind By David Sachs, Ottawa Citizen November 25, 2013
CENSORED Op-Ed: Stephen Harper puts Conservatives in a bind By David Sachs, Ottawa Citizen November 25, 2013

Op-Ed: Stephen Harper puts Conservatives in a bind

By David Sachs, Ottawa Citizen November 25, 2013

The conservative mindset understands that power tends to corrupt. How far will we let it corrupt us? I have been involved in party work for more than a decade and I call on other party members to demand answers, or resignation from our leader.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has long employed the cynical strategy of total denial when faced with controversy, disregarding the public’s right to the truth.

He knows the public will never follow the minutiae of events. As long as solidarity is maintained, Harper can ride out any storm by claiming it is just more partisan noise. Only we Conservatives have the power to break that solidarity, and take away Harper’s trump card. It’s time to demonstrate that Conservatives care about ethics and ultimately, checks on that corrupting influence of power.

Some of the prime minister’s key people have conspired to undermine Senate investigations, to influence a third-party financial audit and ultimately to pay off a senator, all, in tragic irony, to maintain an illusion of party ethics. The prime minister has, in the kindest interpretation, hidden the full truth.

Is that acceptable to you, as a Canadian and a Conservative?

As Conservatives, there is much Harper and his government have done to be proud of. But as more power is seized by the unelected members of Harper’s inner circle; as more of his key, chosen people turn out to be ethically unsound or worse, we must ask: how far will we let our own leader go?

Some Conservatives argue this tempest is all over a small amount of money. But if the prime minister’s key people are willing to go to such lengths over such a small issue, solely to maintain (how ironic) the façade of ethics, how far would they go over big issues? Does anyone trust this government to deal openly when facing major challenges?

We Conservatives have a rare opportunity. Our opponents are weak and divided. Our team is strong and experienced. If we force Harper to answer truthfully or resign, we gain back our ethical platform. We give a new leader a chance to run in the next election from the prime minister’s office. Even if we lose one election, we will likely face a short-term minority government with a flawed leader. In the big picture, this is the least risky time to change a faulty part.

If we do not act, we embolden Harper. We increase the risk of further ethical scandals. Make no mistake: if Harper continues like this, he will fall, and he will take our party down with it. It will be hard to win an election for a decade. We should control the process.

As a first action, our senators need to make themselves heard. They can break that façade of Conservative solidarity that Harper depends on. Here is a chance to show that they matter, and to take real action to reverse the slide of ethical responsibility we have seen under successive governments of various party stripes.

Ask what is democracy if an elected leader abuses all the levers of power? If he, or his people, manipulate independent branches of government (Senate, Parliamentary Budget Officer)? If he, or people acting on his behalf, abuse the electoral process (as in the allegations of electoral fraud), and then abuse the investigative process (the independent Deloitte audit)? If our leaders hide the truth as common practice?

Harper is no dictator. Call on Harper to speak the truth at last. If he can pull the party back from this slide, he can yet rescue his leadership. If not, he must go.

Harper is putting each of us Conservatives in an ethical bind, and we should resent him for this. We will never be united as a party, let alone as a country, when we are each so divided within ourselves. We need to make ourselves and our country right, and demand ethical, accountable government whatever its colours.

David Sachs is a Conservative communications consultant who has worked for cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon and Peter Kent. He is a board member of the Pontiac Conservative Riding Association in Quebec.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
 
continue reading source: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=9211218&sponsor=dumpharper
or (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Stephen+Harper+puts+Conservatives+bind/9211218/story.html)


David Sachs: Stephen Harper puts Conservatives in a bind

David Sachs / Times Colonist
November 29, 2013 04:29 PM

The conservative mindset understands that power tends to corrupt. How far will we let it corrupt us?

I have been involved in party work for more than a decade and I call on other party members to demand answers or resignation from our leader.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has long employed the cynical strategy of total denial when faced with controversy, disregarding the public’s right to the truth.

He knows the public will never follow the minutiae of events. As long as solidarity is maintained, Harper can ride out any storm by claiming it is just more partisan noise. Only we Conservatives have the power to break that solidarity and take away Harper’s trump card.

It’s time to demonstrate that Conservatives care about ethics and, ultimately, checks on that corrupting influence of power.

Some of the prime minister’s key people have conspired to undermine Senate investigations, to influence a third-party financial audit and ultimately to pay off a senator, all, in tragic irony, to maintain an illusion of party ethics. The prime minister has, in the kindest interpretation, hidden the full truth.

Is that acceptable to Canadians and Conservatives?

As Conservatives, there is much Harper and his government have done to be proud of. But as more power is seized by the unelected members of Harper’s inner circle, as more of his key chosen people turn out to be ethically unsound or worse, we must ask: How far will we let our own leader go?

Some Conservatives argue this tempest is all over a small amount of money. But if the prime minister’s key people are willing to go to such lengths over such a small issue, solely to maintain the façade of ethics, how far would they go over big issues?

Does anyone trust this government to deal openly when facing major challenges?

We Conservatives have a rare opportunity. Our opponents are weak and divided. Our team is strong and experienced. If we force Harper to answer truthfully or resign, we gain back our ethical platform. We give a new leader a chance to run in the next election from the prime minister’s office.

Even if we lose one election, we will likely face a short-term minority government with a flawed leader. In the big picture, this is the least risky time to change a faulty part.

If we do not act, we embolden Harper. We increase the risk of further ethical scandals.

Make no mistake: if Harper continues like this, he will fall and he will take our party down with him. It will be hard to win an election for a decade. We should control the process.

As a first action, our senators need to make themselves heard. They can break that facade of Conservative solidarity that Harper depends on. Here is a chance to show that they matter and to take real action to reverse the slide of ethical responsibility we have seen under successive governments of various party stripes.

What is democracy if an elected leader abuses all the levers of power? If he or his people manipulate independent branches of government (Senate, Parliamentary Budget Officer)? If he or people acting on his behalf abuse the electoral process (as in the allegations of electoral fraud), and then abuse the investigative process (the independent Deloitte audit)? If our leaders hide the truth as common practice?

Harper is no dictator. We should call on him to speak the truth at last. If he can pull the party back from this slide, he can yet rescue his leadership. If not, he must go.

Harper is putting each of us Conservatives in an ethical bind, and we should resent him for this. We will never be united as a party, let alone as a country, when we are so divided within ourselves.

We need to make ourselves and our country right, and demand ethical, accountable government, whatever its colours.

David Sachs is a Conservative communications consultant who has worked for cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon and Peter Kent. He is a board member of the Pontiac Conservative Riding Association in Quebec.
© Copyright Times Colonist

continue reading source: http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/david-sachs-stephen-harper-puts-conservatives-in-a-bind-1.714067

Please note: As of this posting (Election Day 2015) both of the above (Ottawa Citizen) urls currently lead to an error page at the Ottawa Citizen propaganda outlet BUT the Time Colonist url is still active. While you ponder that, be sure to check out the following video explaining the Harper Regime’s “free trade” policy trade offs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7JA7PXXCJo
 


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#Harper’s #DumpsterFire: #Despotism vs #Democracy (Explained in 1946) #cdnpoli #elxn42

Since it is early morning on the 42nd Election, 2015 Edition, we felt it may be in our best interest as a Nation to review an “Old Stock” educational film that explains the differences between Despotism and Democracy to encourage everyone to think really hard before traveling to the polls. We would like to especially deliver this to the “undecided” potential conservative voters that may, or may not, grasp the importance of placing their Country above the Harper Regime’s ideology. In other words, it may be worth considering the option of falling on your swords with dignity today with honour as opposed to casting your kids and grand-kids futures under the ReformaCon bus while falling under another’s sword in disgrace. Below you will find the video that we have uploaded via our ytube channel followed by the transcripts for those that may like to read along or have trouble viewing as it has been rumoured that this is being blocked in Canada. As always, we encourage sharing and commenting…


#Harper’s #DumpsterFire: #Despotism vs #Democracy (Explained in 1946) #cdnpoli #elxn42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YxkyF3CgY4


Despotism

by Encyclopaedia Britannica Films
Published: 1946
Usage: Public Domain
Topics: Political science

Measures how a society ranks on a spectrum stretching from democracy to despotism. Explains how societies and nations can be measured by the degree that power is concentrated and respect for the individual is restricted. Where does your community, state and nation stand on these scales?

The companion Encyclopedia Britannica Film “Democracy” can be found here.
Run time: 11:00
Producer: Encyclopaedia Britannica Films
Audio/Visual:sound, B&W

Shotlist

Illustrates the thesis that all communities can be ranged on a scale running from democracy to despotism. The two chief characteristics of despotism — restricted respect and concentrated power — are defined and illustrated. Two of the conditions which have historically promoted the growth of despotism are explained and exemplified. These are a slanted economic distribution and a strict control of the agencies of communication.

The end of World War II gave impetus to the “one-worlder movement.” Sparked by the sense that nationalism engendered conflict, this movement for world government viewed nationhood as a relic made obsolete in an age of economic interdependence and rapid air transportation. The movement was marked by the release of films calling for world government, such as Man: One Family; We, the Peoples; Brotherhood of Man; and Our Shrinking World, and exposing the nature of fascist and authoritarian rule.

Despotism treats the idea of nationhood differently than most other educational films. It sees nations not as static entities but dynamically, moving towards democracy or despotism as conditions change. This outlook doesn’t mesh well with old cliches about patriotism and democracy, because it doesn’t necessarily see the American system as democracy’s highest achievement.

Despotism offers a number of indicators by which the degree of democracy or despotism in a society can be measured, using a sliding, thermometer-like animated scale. According to an article in The New York Times (March 16, 1946), an advisory board of educators debated for eighteen months (at seventy-five conferences) over the definition of the terms “democracy” and “despotism,” the titles of the two films released at the same time. Finally, a compromise was reached, resulting in the “respect scale” and the “power scale” that we see in Despotism.

So how does our own system measure up? The film becomes a little frightening as we consider where we stand with regard to indicators like economic distribution, concentration of land ownership, regressive taxation and centralized control of information. Draw your own conclusions.


[Despotism. An Erpi Classroom Film. Produced by Encyclopaedia Britannica Films, Inc. in collaboration with Harold D. Lasswell, Ph.D., Yale University. Copyright MCMXLV by Encyclopaedia Britannica Films Inc. All rights reserved. main titles graphic design art cards]

You can roughly locate any community in the world somewhere along a scale running all the way from democracy to despotism. One at the democracy end, another somewhere in the middle, and a third (inaudible). [rotating globes rulers animation graphs charts measurement quantification scales measures points pointers]

Let’s find out about despotism. This man makes it his job to study these things. “Well for one thing, avoid the comfortable idea that the mere form of government can of itself safeguard a nation against despotism. [maps charts wallcharts professors academics commentators authorities]

Germany under President Hindenburg was a republic. And yet in this republic an aggressive despotism took root and flourished under Adolf Hitler. [maps flags art cards swastikas animation James Brill narrators]

When a competent observer looks for signs of despotism in a community, he looks beyond fine words and noble phrases.” “. . . for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” [saluting flag pledge of allegiance flags hands over hearts lynchings hangings gallows capital punishment condemnation death murder ropes nooses]

“Many observers have found that two workable yardsticks help in discovering how near a community is to despotism. The respect scale and the power scale. [goal variables charts graphs posters pointing fingers]

A careful observer can use a respect scale to find how many citizens get an even break. As a community moves towards despotism, respect is restricted to fewer people. [shared fairness equality]

A community is low on a respect scale if common courtesy is withheld from large groups of people on account of their political attitudes; if people are rude to others because they think their wealth and position gives them that right, or because they don’t like a man’s race or his religion. [drugstores soda Palmer Pharmacy pharmacies prescriptions candy cosmetics Scarlet Stores pedestrians people walking sidewalks storm troopers goons fascists military uniforms SA men SS men brownshirts brown shirts Nazis Sam Browne belts leather boots spectators Good Germans Jewish people Jews anti-Semitism antisemitism racism prejudice bigotry private doors offices bosses employers management class chauvinism classism For a quiet, restful vacation. Camp Gentilhomme on the Lake. Reservation Blank.

Gentlemen: Enclosed please find $ — deposit for my party of: name, address, date of arrival, religion. We solicit Gentile patronage only. Are there any Hebrews in your party? Yes or no. I hereby swear that the above statements are true. Signed application blanks pencils pointing]

Equal opportunity for all citizens to develop useful skills is one basis for rating a community on a respect scale. The opportunity to develop useful skills is important but not enough. [schools colleges universities lawns trees graduates steps stairs mothers cap and gown mortarboards parental pride pictures snapshots photography parents diplomas]

The equally important opportunity to put skills to use is a further test on a respect scale. [newspapers jobs applications employment offices unemployment work lines employment agencies]

A power scale is another important yardstick of despotism. It gauges the citizen’s share in making the community’s decisions. Communities which concentrate decision making in a few hands rate low on a power scale and are moving towards despotism. Like France under the Bourbon kings, one of whom said, “The state – I am the state.” [shared concentrated political power democracy equestrian statues horses statuary public art]

Today democracy can ebb away in communities whose citizens allow power to become concentrated in the hands of bosses. “What I say goes. See, I’m the law around here. Ha ha ha.” [government buildings smoke fires political power Tammany Hall machines laughs laughing newspaper reporters press]

The test of despotic power is that it can disregard the will of the people. It rules without the consent of the governed. [Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776 booklets opening inserts printed pieces In Congress, the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.]

Look beyond the legal formalities of an election in measuring a community on the power scale to see if the ballot is really free. [fascists Nazis elections voting booths rigged storm troopers soldiers terrorism voters crosses hats uniforms Sam Browne belts hats control]

If the citizens can vote only the way they are told, a community approaches despotism.

When legislatures become ceremonial assemblies only, and have no real control over lawmaking, their community rates low on a power scale. “Sieg Heil. Sieg Heil.” [Germany Third Reich Nazis Adolf Hitler swastikas ceremonies applause clapping newsreels salutes fascists fascism]

In a downright despotism, opposition is dangerous whether the despotism is official or whether it is unofficial. [signs fences concentration camps Camp 33 for Political Offenders political prisoners prisons prison camps hoods hanging nooses ropes executions deaths capital punishment condemned people murder flames fires burning crosses Ku Klux Klan terrorism hoods racism]

“The spread of respect and power in a community is influenced by certain conditions which many observers measure by means of the economic distribution and information scales.” [instrumental variables]

If a community’s economic distribution becomes slanted, its middle income groups grow smaller and despotism stands a better chance to gain a foothold. [balanced distribution of wealth money affluence poverty]

Where land is privately owned, one sign of a poorly balanced economy is the concentration of land ownership in the hands of a very small number of people.

When farmers lose their farms they lose their independence. This one can stay on, but not as his own boss any more. To the extent that this condition exists throughout a nation, the likelihood of despotism is increased. [couples men women John J. Shea v. Walter Leeds.

Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale. mortgages fingers pointing United States maps animation]

In communities which depend almost entirely on a single industry, such as a factory or mine, maintaining economic balance is a challenging problem. [company towns monopolies smokestacks factories animation]

If this condition exists over the nation as a whole, so that the control of jobs and business opportunities is in a few hands, despotism stands a good chance. Another sign of a poorly balanced economy is a taxation system that presses heaviest on those least able to pay. [animation money graphs wealth national revenue large incomes small incomes regressive taxation]

A larger part of a small income is spent on necessities such as food. Sales taxes on such necessities hit the small income harder. [pie charts pie graphs large income small income]

In the days of the salt tax, feudal despotisms were partly sustained by this and other (inaudible). [historical recreations Colonial North America taxation without representation]

A community rates low on an information scale when the press, radio, and other channels of communication are controlled by only a few people and when citizens have to accept what they are told. In communities of this kind, despotism stands a good chance. [uncontrolled media monopolies monopolization oligopolies Time Warner Disney ABC Capital Cities Westinghouse CBS NBC General Electric Fox News Corporation Turner CNN critical evaluation automatic acceptance]

See how a community trains its teachers. “Bear this in mind. Young people cannot be trusted to form their own opinions. This business about open-mindedness is nonsense. It’s a waste of time trying to teach students to think for themselves. It’s our job to tell ’em.” [lecturers mental discipline drill classrooms agreement nodding heads manufacturing consent consensus]

And when teachers put such training into practice, despotism stands a good chance. These children are being taught to accept uncritically whatever they are told. Questions are not encouraged. [students conformity conditioning brainwashing writing learning education]

“How can you ask such a question? Have you got a textbook?” “Yes Ma’am.” “Does it say here that our law courts are always just?” “Yes Ma’am.” “Then how dare you question the fact? Sit down.”

And so we aren’t surprised when – “But it must be true. I saw it in this book right here.”

And if books and newspapers and the radio are efficiently controlled, the people will read and accept exactly what the few in control want them to. Government censorship is one form of control. [Ministry of Propaganda plaques signs doors windows Internal Censorship censors rubber stamps passed by censor deletions blue pencils manuscripts]
A newspaper which breaks a government censorship rule can be suspended. It is also possible for newspapers and other forms of communication to be controlled by private interests. [The Daily Citizen press control proclamations This Newspaper is Suspended editors journalists newspaper offices Advertising Manager Mgr.]

“I thought I told you to kill that story. It’ll cost us a lot of advertising.” “If that story goes out, I quit.” “All right.” [firings]

What sort of community do you live in? Where would you place it on a democracy/despotism scale? To find out, you can rate it on a respect scale and a power scale. And to find out what way it is likely to go in the future, you can rate it on economic distribution and information scales. [cities wipes]

The lower your community rates on economic distribution and information scales, the lower it is likely to rate on respect and power scales and thus to approach despotism.

What happens in a single community is the problem of its own citizens, but it is also the problem of us all because as communities go, so goes the nation. [animation United States]

[Encyclopaedia Britannica Films Inc. Bring the World to the Classroom. end titles]

Politics, Political science, Democracy, Despotism, Dictatorship, Censorship, Newspapers, Rubber stamps, Freedom of the press, Communism, Germany (Nazi) Third Reich, Students, Teachers, Political Indoctrination, Propaganda, Mass communications, Animation Graphic design Cartoons, Animation Scales (sliding), Information (visual), Surrealism, Capitalism, Economics

 

continue reading source: https://archive.org/details/Despotis1946

 


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#Harper’s #CPC #DumpsterFire: #ShyTories vs #LieTories #polls #cdnpoli #elxn42 #GPC #LPC #NDP

Well friends, it seems as if all of our hard work by way of cooperation, collaboration and consultation may have indeed sparked the Harper Regime’s Epic Outta Control Dumpster Fire! At the very least our latest poll diversion efforts have served to be an excellent accelerant by adding fuel within the dissenting ranks within the core of the Regime itself. It almost seems, judging by the varied mixed messages as if there is some sort of controlled demolition occurring. While the fire rages, we’ll try to keep this post, short and sweet while the whole mutha burns.

#Harpers #DumpsterFire 2015
#Harpers #DumpsterFire 2015

Before we begin, let’s not forget who the cowardly copypasta yellow journalists from across the spectrum are on Tuesday so that we may ask some tough questions and/or issue some pink slips. Surely there are more qualified individuals that may have the courage to do some independent investigative research into domestic AND global issues as opposed to the current trend of fear based war-mongering that is being spewed and regurgitated ad nauseum via “anonymous government” sources.

Now, let’s get to the meat and potatoes of this, hopefully last, installment of the DumpHarper! campaign and how it ties into our belligerent title. For this we have to open up some of our strategy guide, but not too much to provide the next Dumpable Regime any strstegic advantages.

The Harper Regime intended to create the same fear/war diversion/division atmosphere it did in the last election but since there global planners did not anticipate the flow of their “Old Stock” interventionist policies, (think WW1), we seemingly have found ourselves as a Nation caught in 2 separate simmering quagmires, one in Syria and the other in the Ukraine. One is brimming with so-called jihadist mercenaries while the other is brimming with so-called neo-nazi mercenaries causing unseen and unimaginable horrors upon the innocent populations.

The sad truth is that “We the People” are funding these foreign endeavours and really our kids and grand-kids cannot afford them and more than likely will decide to default on them. This should serve to be a wake up call to the so-called Boomers, since if push comes to shove, they will be dumped off into the Soylent Green camps. We will simply leave it there for right now so that you may let those thoughts percolate a bit.

Moving forward we need to make a semi-admission with regards to our recent “poll” strategy since the Regime felt it necessary to to bring in the Wizard of Oz as a high paid TFW to run the campaign. This “shy tory” strategy, oddly enough, played right into our strategy which we code named “Operation Lie Tory” for just such an emergency.

So what is a “Lie Tory” you may wonder?

Simply put a “Lie Tory” is someone who willingly infiltrates caucus meetings, inserts false “Armageddon” narratives (lol) into politcos/journalists/thinktanks, fields all calls/emails/polls/etc. plus pledge enduring (loaded) admiration, loyalty and support for Dear Leader Harper and all those within the Regime, aka: ReformaCons, to anyone that will listen to our outlandish tales. The only Harper Party members that were not given this stellar support were the actual “Old Stock” Conservatives within the bunch since they will have to perform the internal Regime purges. (BTW: Our version of “Old Stock” is pretty much the 180 degree opposite of Harper’s version.) You can believe us on that since many of us are traditionally conservative that hold certain fundamental views upon the balance between good governance and fiscal responsibility. In other words, we demand value from our investment by way of taxation. We believe in fair taxation with responsible representation based in the rule of law that benefit our own Nation first and formost. We do NOT believe in unfair taxation without representation that only benefits globalist and internationalist minded investors that do NOT hold any allegiance to Canada nor contribute to our taxation system, period.

As promised, we shall conclude this, hopefully last, installment of the DumpHarper! blog while keeping our eyes pealed for fraudulent and suspicious voting activities and irregularities.

We Don’t Need No Water, Let the…

Grandmaster Flash – The roof is on fire (remix)

GET OUT AND VOTE!


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#Harper’s War(s): The Next Generation(s) of Serfs #cdnpoli #elxn42

For this (hopefully last) installment of the “#Harper’s War(a) series we thought it might be a good idea to consider the actual costs vs benefit of the Harper’s ongoing far-right Economic Extraction Action Plan with regards to the current hybrid “Millennial” generation and next generation(s). At this stage in this game as the election draws near we must also ponder the mysteries within the “text” of the highly secret TPP that was “promised” to be released prior to election day but for rather lame “Go along, to get along” reasons, it will not be available.

The Harper Regime’s non-stop divisive Babylonian shell-game economics, fear-mongering, war profiteering, script regurgitation, hyperbolic rhetoric and it’s pandering for strategic voters to the extreme far-right minority segments for support is a very real and significant problem. They have purposely timed this coordinated operation to coincide with a very small Parliamentary calendar and will complete the far-right takeover with 3 successive blows. While all persist in the war-drumming and Bill C-51 distractions the delayed omnibus budget will go unchallenged, un-scrutinized and unnoticed. Since we know that there is no Parliament sitting until after the election, serious questions have and will continue to simply go unanswered and unaddressed. Win or lose, the Harper Regime wins in the end since if they lose, they won’t have to answer for a lot of issues that are bubbling over, the next group will yet if they do win, it’s full steam ahead until they ultimately lose control of the narrative, message and messengers. Unfortunately if they manage to steal a majority, it will propel us past the point of no return.

Before proceeding further down this rabbit hole, we should contemplate the shorter term consequences with regards to the safety and security of the younger generations, domestically. One thing that we are certain of is that each and every Government policing and security agency  across the board are undergoing sweeping downsizing and compounding budget reductions. In other words, more budget cuts and downsizing measures are being implemented before any review of the cost/benefit analysis of past cuts to see where shortfalls have been discovered and persist to be problematic. With the massive and solitary refocus upon the minimalistic lone-wolf “terrorist” attack scenario, the already stressed system will deteriorate and downgrade the Police State’s collective ability to provide adequate resources for investigations into crimes that affect almost everyone, everyday. The trade off, we as a society are being forced to accept in the form of Bill C-51, is that all resources, real and imaginary, must be allocated to waging a war against an invisible needle-in-a-haystack boogeyman and not against those countless, easy to find, individuals engaging in organized crime, money laundering, Ponzie scheming, fraud, corruption, drug smuggling, gun running, child exploitation, human trafficking, gang warfare, armed robbery and the like. Since we must be made less-safe at all costs to be more-safe with future costs, all that will be needed in the future will be the stoke of a pen and an ever expanding list of “terrorists” can be determined and declared as necessary.

Even putting aside that all of the opaque enemies, boogieman and murky allies in these officially declared and unofficially undeclared ideological wars by the Harper Regime and their globalist comrades, aka: Bolsheviks, are between ultra-right entities fighting for dominance in their sphere of influence and then compound that with the way Bill C-51 is worded to declare the “official” far-right and ultra-right “enemies” and pay attention to the lack of certain “useful” far-right entities. Fast forward a bit and one may notice that in any foreign intervention scheme the Harper Regime’s choice is always in support of the furthest to the right of the embattled parties in the region with the most advantageous economic trade-route territories and better financed private mercenary armies. If we disregard any “left” opposition exists in any region, we can only presume that this Government sanctioned strategy in-itself creates an immediate far-right adversary within itself and is designed for almost immediate failure.

We also know that once any Party is beholden to an assortment of competing unholy fringe alliances for electoral convenience, ultra-far-right (or left) extremist segments can and will, easily coalesce, conspire and ultimately seize complete power and control over the government, economy and the military in one sweep. Isn’t this how the previously far-right Reform/Alliance coup transpired? First they acquired the party apparatus then they seized total control of the PMO and consolidated the powers within itself and the Treasury Ministry and Justice Ministry. Now we will bear witness to the evolution of extreme politics as the Liberal Party will transition further to the right to appeal to the former conservative base that oppose Harper and to piggyback on the politics of fear-mongering and war profiteering that made the “West” great. If recent history is to be proven correct, the best way to form a Party quickly is to coordinate, co-op and/or outright hijack one. In the above scenario, either way the vote goes, the “right” retains control of the Government apparatus with a solid plan b that on the surface seems palatable with the added bonus of redrawing the boundaries and redefining the “left” side of the spectrum.

Considering the generations that will pay for these wars, with their lives and limbs and odious unpayable debts by insulated older generations have zero voice, we must explore and understand the costs, ramifications and implications of an unfettered march to war policy for both the short term and long term. Having driven their carefully “controlled messages” this far into the collective psyche, the Harper Loyalists, propagandists and apologists can now begin probing even further towards the far-right extremes based upon zero facts, tin-foil hats and illogical fears by way of deception and subversive intimidation.

The oddly concealed and/or conveniently overlooked fact remains that these younger generations, with absolutely no voice, will be the bearers of the debts and actions of today’s political establishment. The veil is finally lifting and exposing the “invisible hand” of the economy and how many, if not most, of the publicly elected officials are beholden to the interests of the top 15% of the population. This may well be the ideal scenario, who knows, but even if it is there should be a system of checks and balances so that they do not go off the rail off into some ideological fantasy land. Contrary to the constant “…net new jobs…” mantra we hear repeated, consider real math and compare that to the actual number of newly work-aged employes into the workforce since the Harper Regime first came to power, their employment opportunities and their debt servitude.

The Harper Regime’s job creation results are truly pathetic and serve only the wants of a coddled 15% that will never serve in a war, nor suffer on any battlefield at the expense of the 85% majority. Compound that even further by looking at the age demographics of the actual hiring and associated pay scales, one will see that skewed in favour of the expanding 55+ segment as opposed to the expanding 25 and under segment. Once again, the beneficiaries will never have to serve in military services, but will be free to profit off such endeavours.

This seems to be the beginnings of the perfect generational storm as one generation seeks to reap the rewards of their labours, irregardless to their losses while the generations that will be necessary to fund these rewards remain jobless. This poses a problem since this age segment lost a significant portion of their savings, investments and pensions, aka: “wealth”, in the aftermath of the economic crisis and may never recover. This presumes that one will only have the freedom of choice to choose to be sent off to slaughter as cannon fodder abroad or exist within a rationed impoverishment at home. This also begs the question, how are such a select few able to initiate and instigate problems seeking solutions that they themselves never end up paying for, or adequately funding and/or administering, the long term solutions.

Pay close attention to the shell gaming by way of omnibus budgeteering only short gains profits and all real costs of their selectively interventionist backstopping practices are allowed to download the costs of their imposed austerity measures and military backed foreign financial adventurism, the lower 85% will continue to spiral downward and rapidly converge into a broader society with an overall lesser quality of life. Oddly enough, the data shows that within a zero-sum economic model, the top 15% are pretty much immune to the effects of deteriorating economy and  due to the constraints and trade offs that accompany globalization schemes and economic integration agendas, the younger generations are constrained by the vary same global investors that discourage “public” investment necessary to properly educate our children and instead favour various privatization schemes. This financial downloading can be witnessed in real time with regards to health care, infrastructure, First Nations, Veterans and other public service cuts such as police, fire and other emergency first responder services.

We really can’t proceed without pondering the relativity of the abrupt resignation of John Baird, the shady foreign endeavours file, think Myanmar/Burma and Hillary Clinton’s email (treason) scandal, the pending Iraq/Syria and Beyond War Act, Bill C-51 and the delayed budget fit into this toxic mix. The combination of these three topics uncovers an entirely new perspective into how pervasive and powerful the anti-diplomatic, antagonistic, pro-war lobby has become and how any anti-war dissent will be stifled and suppressed with extreme prejudice and impunity.

Now, one must consider and compare how vigorously the Harper Regime fully endorsed, sanctioned and supported the Maidan, and set the stage for this tragically epic battle of the oligarchs civil war, in Ukraine with how vigorously, through legislation such as the Fair Elections Act and Bill C-51 or violence as in the case of the Toronto G8/G20 kettle filled crackdown, they are assuring that any popular demonstrations and/or uprising against their ideological rule, are fearfully discouraged and cannot happen in Ottawa or elsewhere. In this new norm, only Harper Loyalist’s and apologists will be afforded to any rights and/or freedoms such as speech, thought, association and/or assembly. The inconvenient truth is that all of these bits and chunks of power consolidation to the PMO and Treasury will be afforded to any/all future Governments.

It seems plausible that the fear-mongering, war drum beating and shell-game economics propaganda can easily neuter any opposition. It’s a major trump card and it is being played in much the same way as it was in the lead up to WW1. The pre-war propaganda that sets the stage campaign is in full gear as we speak.

First of all we should remember the timing of the “Arab Spring” and how the Libyan intervention, sprinkled with the “Assad Must Go” sideshow narrative, contaminated the 2011 election campaign that was fraught with several seedy and shady election shenanigans by outside market players beyond the legal jurisdiction of Canadian law enforcement agencies and the reach of Elections Canada. This deviously cleaver tactic conveniently led to major distractions with regards to the fundamental issues that lead up to the Election of 2011 and the ongoing epic failures of the Harper Regime at the time.

Remember, while some have slithered their way into the courts, the major issues with their governance and opacity were never resolved while their dirty deeds remain hidden and concealed from the public by the politicos and media alike for the most part. With cunningly shrewd manipulation of legislation and the subsequent consolidation of powers into the PMO and Treasury Ministry, their collective “documented” shenanigans will be sealed as classified far beyond the reach of the youth of today and tomorrow.

In other words, it is in their collective (15%) opinion, most of which invest and shelter their ill gotten “wealth” abroad, that after they themselves so greatly benefited from, and fully reaped the fruitful rewards of a rigged system, that very same system must be destroyed from the inside and out. This “controlled demolition” will hypothetically assure by way of distraction and diversion that their collective (15%) future prosperity, safety and security is assured at the expense of the remaining 85%, aka: serfs…


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

#Harper’s War(s): #Harpernomics, #C51 and the #NATO Cruz Missile! #cdnpoli #pnpcbc #ctvpp

Much can be gleaned about the rise and tightening grip of the far-right globally if one dares to look outside the box that is framed by the media conglomerates. The repetition that the “media” is somehow a soapbox for the “left” has run it’s coarse as is evident with the rise of the far-right phenomenon that finds the media on board, full steam ahead. At best the media may be a few steps away from the ultra-far right but it is closer to the far-right than ever and is certainly going along to get along. One question may be, are they willingly going along or have they been secretely legislated?.

This mashup summary will be a somewhat long rant that will pose some seriously neglected questions, expose some uncomfortable gaps and potential connections and exploit some rather historical similarities. This summary may be updated but more than likely will branch off into further research. If anything it should prompt many to delve deeper into any of the issues that are connected.

We intend to additionally explore if we are actually in an “official” state of war that has been secretly declared. Is it possible for a War Measures Act to be secretly or subversively implemented? If so, how do we actually know if this is the case and who the “enemy” is? Or is this where “Harper’s Enemies Lists” somehow fits in? This may explain the virtually one-sided presentations across the various conflict zones and hot spots that emanate from the same handful of global conglomerates. That’s just the tip of the iceberg for a much bigger glacier.

How can an ideological war between the ultra-far-right and the far-right politically or a cultural/tribal/civil war pitting nationalists vs ultra-nationalists militarily, be fought simultaneously at home and abroad?

How far to the “right” must one travel and give up personally to acquire perceived safety and security provided by the oppressive Harper Regime over real life freedom and liberty in the pursuit of prosperity provided by democracy and credible market based capitalism?

How much further to the “right” will the Liberal Party creep and how far will the NDP choose to follow behind?

We only ponder this because some circles are harder to square than others. The further to the right you travel, you’ll notice that moar war and less freedom are on the agenda while the less war factions simply go along to get along for the most part.

We are also beginning to contemplate how the destabilization in Ukraine and Iraq are not being used as some sort of “incentive” to members within the E.U. with regards to expediting and completing the pending cross-Atlantic Free Trade Agreements. Cutting of access to Eurasian markets under the cover of sanctions against Russia seems like a good strategy as is the display of how quickly organized violence against any State can be launched. Add that with the secret TPP and it gets much clearer but we might have to ask Nigel Wright since he has his fingerprints all over the place. The Duffy scandal forces one to consider how much access and influence really had and how he used it to further his own financial portfolio.

How do all of these tie in with the SPP and Bill C-51?

Who are Harper’s advisors anyway and who advises them?

Are these the same type of ideological “foreign policy” advisors that the G.W. Bush Iraq team “employed” to cherry pick reams of intel for a needle in a haystack, pie in the sky, unsubstantiated documents/clauses to fabricate the conditions that justify immediate and massive military intervention?

“We the People” are certainly being groomed for a war of unimaginable scale and consequences, but it will be very, very good for some global investors. The “Police State” conditions are being arranged via the Trojan Horse Bill C-51 to “legally” stifle any/all anti-war and/or anti-austerity protests. There will be no Ottawa Maidan, period. If we were to boil it down to it’s murky base, we would notice that all of the current conflict zones that require liberation are concentrated along various pipelines, energy, transportation, shipping and rail corridors. When the long dust settles, new borders will be redrawn to consolidate and secure trade routes. The real problem is that no State can control what it’s oligarchs invest in or how they invest it, move it, offshore it or divest it. Another thing that is certain is that professional mercenary alliances and the black market only serve those that provide the necessities of war and are loyal only to those that can provide them financing and armaments.

The key fact is that through the various narratives being weaved about Bill C-51, it is a massive Trojan Horse with the anti-war movements in it’s sights. All of the others that will be caught up in this dragnet operation that fall on the “left” side of the political spectrum will be either considered a “bonus” or as acceptable collateral damage and cannon fodder. Keep in mind that fear, intimidation and propaganda plague all cultures/regions and are utilized by multiple overlapping players with their own ultimate agendas. while violent persecution attempts to solve dissent abroad, the “West” achieves this control of dissent easily by way of economic persecution. In either case, the “life” of the individual involved is lost, one by loss of blood, the other by loss of assets/income/credibility/career.

One of the key provisions of Bill C-51 that needs to be examined is the “language” about the censoring of the interwebz of “terrorist” propaganda. If we harken back to WWI and ponder the implications of how propaganda and censorship are used to sell wars and interventions, we need to ask ourselves one fundamentally important question, who decides this opaque definition. Then we need to ask ourselves, where, why and how opaque definition based declarations are decided. The logical follow up question would be who has the most to benefit from the proceeds of the declaration?

If we look at the deteriorating situation in Ukraine from beyond the lens of the AP/Reuters reports, we see a nation that is spiraling into chaos and various oligarchs have their own loyal “volunteer” battalions. Many estimates put these far-right extremist “anti-Russia” mercenary groups at approx 17, each with it’s own vision, mandate and source of funding. The same might be presumably said for the “pro-Russian” side as well. These would be players that are being employed to either secure business interests or expand land claims.

Some other interesting points to ponder may be related to the bursting of the Commodities Super Cycle during a highly concentrated, uncertain, oversupplied and illiquid global market based upon unsustainable debt.

Have we reached peak energy?

How low can the price of oil/energy go before the serviceable-debt bubble pops?

Are these wars being waged to assure that the flow of energy profitability increases in an otherwise oversupplied market?

Since no Central bank or amount of austerity can ever balance the costs of misguided military interventions and the effects of previous omnibus budgets yet to be felt, let’s review a small segment of what has transpired since debt based Harpernomics has replaced surplus based economics.

Even with the massive downloading of costs onto the Provinces without balancing the tax system and revenue sharing, the Federal Debt has exceeded $600 Billion, with debt servicing alone growing daily at a steady clip. Since those costs are immediately download to the Municipalities/etc. the costs to service existing debts becomes an issue that rapidly prevents proper infrastructure maintenance and upgrade investments.

Since Harpernomics has replaced economics with selective inflation based shell-game budgetary tricks to acquire a magical surplus of everything just before an election, the fact remains that job creation continues to lag far behind the amount necessary to accommodate new entries into the work force, wages are stagnant at best and according to the Harpernomicists themselves, the average hours worked per week is in a steady decline and is projected to continue the trend downward.

Will the drop in oil and commodities afford the Harper Regime the “right” to encourage wage reductions throughout the energy sector like they did to the non-outsourced manufacturing sector?

At what point does using a sliding scale for the hours worked considered “full time” for job numbers presented by the Harpernomicists become a purely mythical and unreliable set of digits to an actual number?

Other than the Harper Loyalists, Harpernomicists and apologists, who actually thinks that misguided war waging is free?

Even though the Harper Regime cannot provide a final figure for the Afghanistan intervention, the costs estimates thus far range between $20-30 billion CDN + uncountable collateral damages. The results of the intervention, other than the huge short term gains by military contractors, are far from conclusive. No matter how hard anyone tries or how many times it is invaded and/or occupied it, Afghanistan is going to be whatever it wants to be based upon their own best interests within boundaries on a map that they had no voice in drawing. In the overall case of the invasion, on paper it looked all good and noble and just, but not far under the surface the truth existed. The entire process was manipulated and intelligence was distorted so that one of the more sinister and nefarious minority groups were given authority over the majority. Surely a group will accept “aid” to gain their own syndicate a competitive advantage but there will always be shifting of the balance of power between tribal alliances as power is gained. This is not the first rodeo of this kind for Afghans and they know that any “foreign” presence will be short  sights and short lived in the big picture and have pretty much decided where the boundaries lie between themselves.  The greatly under-reported violence that we see now in Afghanistan is the end result of external military intervention and occupation that allowed certain tribes to immediately fill the vacuum and consolidate “legal” authority by force. Not only that but, the blowback from the flourishing Poppy boom and trade is already being felt globally and the negative effects will be long lasting across the board.

In much the same way the Afghanistan costs were budgeted, contrary to the initial “estimates” provided by the Harper Regime, the Libya intervention Harpernomiced out several times higher at approx. 1/2 billion + uncountable collateral damages that has resulted in a completely insecure failed state embroiled in a civil/tribal war intermixed with various mercenary groups seeking weapons and training. The fact that there were no attempts by Canada or other NATO Allies to secure cooperation with the remnants of the Libyan Military to secure the armories and military facilities is highly suspicious at best. Has anyone pondered the thought that maybe John Baird was communicating about Libya/Syria with Hillary Clinton via her unsecured private email server? What happens if those communications get leaked?

Who is ultimately paying for this high, long-term debt-servicing-cost agenda?

What is the motivation, and what are the true long term costs in blood, currency value and purchasing power, behind the fascinating objective of creating an “invisible” self-perpetuating unsustainable debt burden?

How can Harper promise that 2 wars, in Ukraine and Syria/Iraq, can be fought and funded on the backside of lower oil revenues, stagnant at best wages, massive looming job losses, deflationary housing market pressures and lower tax revenues.

As the debates surrounding war and electioneering take center stage, Bill C-51 and the “delayed” budget simmer away. One affects our assets and the other affects our liberties bad both are being looted by the pro-war insiders. This brings us to a rather oddly timing of the NATO meeting, the U.S. Presidential campaign bid that was declared by Canada’s own export, far-right winger Ted Cruz and the devious election tactics used by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to court, fear-monger and rally the farther-right elements to assure his grip on power. These “faces” present the sell-siders of apocalyptic evangelical wars in their respective domains and propose, foster and initiate discontent within and interventions abroad to protect opaque “national” interests. Ultimately, since Cruz has zero chance just based upon the amount of cash he has, we conclude that he is simply strategic investment in the global game of consensual election engineering and a political pawn that posed no threat to the U.S. status quo. His entry is a pre-election campaign aimed at intended to influence and engage Canadians to bolster far-right support for the Harper Party in the short term from beyond the realm and jurisdiction of Election Canada. Since Cruz is staunchly anti-Obama, pay attention to which slogans and taking points get highlighted, accentuated and repeated by whom, on this side of the border. Then pay closer attention to how the media in the U.S. respond to hostile rhetoric from the anti-Obama/pro-Bibi Harper Loyalists. Then pay attention to how the Liberals respond.

This combination sets the stage for Harper’s  sell-side that supports NATO’s expansion into sovereign Syrian territory against “darker” ultra-far-right mercenaries for hire with the bonus prize of additional Ukraine territory to train “lighter” ultra-far-right mercenaries for hire that will eventually become a battle hardened menace to the E.U. and the West. Fear not, Harper’s Bill C-51 will protect us.

Is widespread war and discontent the Harper Regime’s reverse Soylent Green Solution for youth unemployment and lack of opportunity?

Are these strategic regions being justifiably destabilized in order to profitably reduce the stockpiles of Cold War era armaments and battle-harden the next generation of unaccountable and subcontract-able mercenary units?

What about the Yemen powder keg that is exploding and what about the current and ongoing collateral damages, dislocations and refugee crisis?

In one instance, international law isn’t relevant as Harper Loyalists proclaim that they are defending the autonomy of “Kurdistan” against a threatening “darker” ultra-far-right terrorist threat emanating from Syria that has no legal standing. One that, oddly enough, is fully armed with American equipment, hardware and armaments and has secured funding from several regional players with varied agendas. We need to remember that “Kurdistan” is a province within Iraq in what amounts to a breakaway region that has been planning and forming an independent State since at least 1991. It is rather obvious that the Sykes-Picot concept over and the position and/or agenda of the Kurds and that of the Iraq Government in Baghdad are not necessarily in sync. Their ultimate vision is the combination of the greater Kurdish regions that span across Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq or maybe the recreation of Assyria. This which would provide “space” for the Kurds to consolidate authority as well as provide regional protection for the remaining Christians and other targeted minorities. The only way for that to unfold would be if the primary players decided to seriously negotiate satisfactory representative regional agreements that settles the power/land dispute between the Sunni and Shiite populations in Iraq and Syria, below Kurdistan. These primary players would have to coordinate with Baghdad and Damascus and consider splitting off Sunni chunks into an independent state that lies between Syria and Iraq. With the hidden civil war in Iraq bubbling over and the chaos in Syria putting more pressure on the border, this seems like the most plausible end-goal as this strategically concentrated and central swath would be able to control the flow of resources and mercenaries between all of the surrounding nations and let the Sunni/Shiite and Islamaphobia battles ensue.

In another instance, in a quasi-mixed role reversal as far as international law is concerned, the autonomy of “Novorossiya” within the Ukraine is being denied to it’s inhabitants while they are being attacked by far-right mercenary groups funded international and regional players with diverging, converging and overlapping interests. Another odd twist with regards to interpretations and reinterpretations of international laws is in the way Crimean autonomy post 1991 has been interpreted

In a coinciding instance in Syria itself, much like the propaganda campaign to bomb freedom into Libya, an actual far-right terrorist threat was detected from a very small and problematic region and was identified as emanating from the same roots as the armed insurrection in Libya. In these cases, the media portrays these known terrorists as peaceful liberators and gives them a free pass to do their dirty deeds without question.

Then we have the Yemen civil war being reignited in what is a very strange play with regards to the loose application regarding international law, violating sovereignty and crossing borders. In this case, unlike Ukraine, the President that fled to safety abroad is given authority over the security situation. In some ways it almost seems as if there are some interesting energy power alliances behind the scenes that may be trying to isolate the House of Saud by drawing them into a trap in Syria or is the House of Saud is pursuing more calculated and nefarious deeds by isolating it’s own allies into convoluted quagmires with it’s adversaries and enemies.

Maybe Gaddafi was right, over the years he repeatedly told all of the Arab leaders that eventually they will all be deposed and replaced eventually, just like Saddam. It is probable that some of those leaders realized this threat existed, or quickly became aware with the prophetic demise of Gaddafi, and have been engaged in developing solid contingency plans for the stability of the most vital economic regions while destabilizing others in-between the regional economic hubs. This situation has the potential to close vital sea traffic between the Red Sea and Arabian Sea and if it accelerates quickly may well put the traffic thru the Persian Gulf at risk/mercy of counter measures since port and seaway blockades are typically dealt with with military means.

All of this will of coarse, allow the price of oil to rise. the problem is that the overall fuel savings did not provide any real measurable “spending the savings” injection into the economy. The price of fuel and energy went way up too fast and for far too long that it was a drain on the overall disposable income of everyone all along. We can now see what a negative effect the post economic crisis energy boom was really having. Considering actual inflation for necessities, Canadians have not seen any measurable savings in the retail, supply chain or transportation sectors due to the reduction in fuel costs, we know that any increases at the pumps, scales or meters will be felt hard by everyday Canadians.

The odd denominator is that even if we were still able to ignore the armed foreign factions, the peaceful anti-regime factions that were caught in the crossfire were all declared terrorists by some and/or liberators by others. Either way, with complete disregard to civilian casualties entire villages and communities are being bombed into ruins by their own government forces vs foreign funded mercenaries that are both engaged in scorched earth policies. Whomever keeps fighting for the most piles of rubble the longest, wins and eventual gains access to various economic aid and stimulus packages with the high interest portion of the debt shifted off as a Government obligation and the next to zero interest portion to the private interests

These facts along countless fronts and lines in-between sides and within context “paints” pretty much anyone and everyone as a hostile target, enemy and/or terrorist threat. It’s only a matter of time before someone/something of importance is downed and the tragedy and chaos that follows. It’s only a matter of time until some politico spouts off the wrong thing that lights the fuse.

Does any of this sound familiar? What about the “geographical” turf being disputed? Look at the “lines” and former boundaries of nations and empires after the tumultuous 1800’s that were drawn on paper pre-WWI. Look for connections to the competing oligarchs, moguls, robber-barons and profiteers that supported the pro-war expansionist parties and lobbies, some of the links still exist today.  and then follow whomever eventually held/holds the war debts of the winners and losers for more insight.

As in the past, the financial structure will be recalculated based upon the final holdings of the competing oligarchs and the division of power that will have afforded themselves. With these “rights” they will reserve the “right” to redraw secure trade routes, “lines” and boundaries in order to forcibly open new markets for some and close them to others. As far as Iraq is concerned, Harper advocated, without question, the deceptive 2003 strategy and subsequent invasion and destabilization of Iraq. Harper Loyalists and apologists ideologically accepted the potential for collateral damage and to this day are committed to pursing an opaque end goal of Middle East liberation and democratization, by hook or by crook. The plan is several years behind and like ll government projects, grossly over-budget and rife with corruption.

Has anyone considered that the “national” interests in Libya that Harper sent the Military to protect were none other than those of Canada’s former spy watchdog, Arthur Porter and other SNC Lavelin insiders? The timing of it all behind the backdrop of the “Arab Spring” that followed the financial “crisis” is rather intriguing. War provides a very effective duck, dust and cover opportunity for those with the inside power to wage war to their own benefit. It is also rather revealing how deep the plot(s) really are and how many of Harper’s current and past advisers and insiders have run amuck or gone rogue.

Moving back a bit to Ted Cruz and the upcoming Harper campaign, let’s ponder a few facts/fictions. The first point is that, in case anyone has not noticed, the far-right Ted Cruz will never win, period, but his “views” on Iraq/Syria, NATO and Ukraine will provide a nice background for Harper’s campaign with it’s shared agenda of instigating hostilities and division and discrediting honest questions, dialog and diplomatic/political compromise. His entry will serve to rally and kettle the far-right fringe groups into more manageable small subgroups that can/will be pigeonholed within the current North American Conservative/Republican base. They will, at least in the short term, be given maximum exposure followed by a carefully controlled rhetoric that mimics the views of the far-right in Canada. This is important because these are the far-right fringe groups that have felt betrayed by the Harper Regime. This propaganda tactic cements them into the Conservative caucus and this empowerment and coverage gives the formerly fractured fringe groups a vast illusion that they will ultimately benefit if victory is achieved, which will further radicalize them. This of coarse, will only radicalize and encourage other far-right-wing anti-elements to thrive. This sets the stage for the able, mobile and nimble enemy of the future to be created and fostered in much the same way as how, what was framed initially as an al Qaeda offshoot, IS/ISIL/ISIS has mystically conquered the Middle East. Strip out the foreign fighters and interventionists and one might be surprised that “We the People” know how to live side by side for the most part and what our regional and national interests are based upon facts on the ground, not dreaming and pondering of right-wing thinktanks.

To truly this perspective one must, at least partially, appreciate how intricate these apparatuses are linked, since this pro-war vs anti-war propaganda phenomenon has often been repeated. One only needs to look back to the pre-WWI era though the various national lenses, media presentations and political rhetoric compared to the rush into the Afghanistan and Iraq quagmires and fiasco in Libya. Keep in mind that the declared military campaign was to be “over by Christmas” and lasted years beyond and effectively set the stage for the Stock Market Crash and WWII that set the stage for the Cold War, etc. Since most publications are/were heavily censored depending upon the “official” states of war in each of these cases, one does need to differentiate between the sell-side war players, the active-side war players and the instigating, agitating warmongering and escalation sided players. Combine those sides together and the un-holy trio radicalizes into an axis with the powers of the Wall Street insider syndicates behind them.

Is it possible to acquire a true cost vs benefit to overall society analysis that is not based upon the ideological zero-sum economy that transforms sovereign state wealth into publicly subsidized debt and then concentrates the usury proceeds to the upper percentile? When one considers the above it seems as if the governments of “sovereign on paper” Nations are really nothing more than fronts for various financial criminal cabals and those that require capital.

Until next time, we’ll leave you with the following press release that pretty much sums up the state of the “independent” and “free” press…

News Release Article from  Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Statement by Jean-Pierre Blais, Chairman and CEO of the CRTC, on journalistic independence

March 25, 2015 – Ottawa-Gatineau – Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

One of the pillars of Canada’s broadcasting system—and, in fact, of our country’s democracy—is that journalists are able to report news stories independently and without undue editorial interference. This principle, along with other fundamental journalistic values, is enshrined in the Code of Ethics that was developed by RTDNA Canada (The Association of Electronic Journalists).

Further to section 2(3) of the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has been entrusted by Canadians, through Parliament, to defend the principles of fair comment, freedom of expression and journalistic independence.

That a regulated company does not like one of the CRTC’s rulings is one thing. The allegation, however, that the largest communication company in Canada is manipulating news coverage is disturbing. Holding a radio or television licence is a privilege that comes with important obligations that are in the public interest, especially in regards to high-quality news coverage and reporting.

An informed citizenry cannot be sacrificed for a company’s commercial interests. Canadians can only wonder how many times corporate interests may have been placed ahead of the fair and balanced news reporting they expect from their broadcasting system.

The RTNDA Code of Ethics is administered by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Canada’s private broadcasters, including CTV, are members of this independent body and must adhere to its codes of conduct. Complaints about this matter should be directed to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council for investigation.

We expect Canada’s broadcasters to live up to their responsibilities and adhere to a high standard in their news and information programs.

– 30 –

Contacts

Follow us on Twitter: @CRTCeng

Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/crtceng

Media relations:
Tel.: 819-997-9403; Fax: 819-997-4245

General inquiries:
Tel.: 819-997-0313, TDD: 819-994-0423; Fax: 819-994-0218
Toll-free No.: 1-877-249-CRTC (2782)
TDD – Toll-free No.: 1-877-909-CRTC (2782)
Ask a question or make a complaint

These documents are available in alternative format upon request.

source: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=955409


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Some By-Election Musings

Or, what if they held an election and no one showed up.

It’s been a week since the by-elections and I still can’t figure out what went on. OK, I get it that by-elections generally have lower turnouts than full elections, but to set two records for lowest turnout is ridiculous.

I’ve heard from the apologists who say things like they had to run the elections then because of the time limits, or the almost helpful they should have gone to the advance polls if they couldn’t vote on the 30th, but these don’t explain the incredibly lacklustre showings at the polls in Alberta.

The numbers from Ontario were far from overwhelming, but at 30% give or take a point or two the turnouts were not unusual for a by-election. The best result was in Trinity-Spadina where the Liberals hoped to take Olivia Chow’s seat from the NDP and they did. But this was hardly a major upset, that riding was Liberal before Ms. Chow and so it was more like retaking ground from the NDP.

But a win is a win.

On the other hand, if anyone should be suffering from election fatigue, it should be Ontario. After all there was a Provincial Election just run here and these two ridings are part of the ongoing electoral circus that is Toronto’s Mayoral Race which feels like it is going on to its 48th month.

So what in the name of Democracy happened in Alberta?

Granted, the timing of the by-election was a stinker. Setting the date as the Monday before the semi-fixed Canada Day Holiday on Tuesday was in my opinion a brain cramp of the highest order. Some people would get Monday off for a three day weekend, some would get a four day weekend, and how many people schedule their vacation for the first full week in July to get that extra day off? Don’t all these people working in the PMO get Government Issue BlackBerrys to stay in contact with each other? My not very smart phone has a calendar, surely theirs do too.

But no one said “Hey Steve, that’s the day before Canada Day?

Or was it part of the plan?

Generally low turnouts at the polls favour the incumbents, did they figure low turnout would help keep the incumbent party in place in Macleod and Fort McMurray?

In Fort McMurray it almost backfired, the Liberals increased their number of votes from the 2011 election and were for a while, threatening to take the riding.

Or maybe everyone just figured that since it was Alberta, the Harper Party was a shoo-in?

I don’t know.

If they had decided to hold these by-elections on the 23rd of June, would the numbers have been better? Something inside me says no.

When the Harper Party handed the Election Reform bill to Pierre Poilievre, I think they were looking at the whole thing backwards. We really didn’t need any new rules to keep people from voting, we do a fine job of that on our own. Maybe it would have made more sense if Skippy had set his mind to figuring out how to get people to go to the polls instead and then I wouldn’t be writing this.

Maybe we should give everyone who votes a free coffee and doughnut with a chance to win a new car.

We’d need a catchy name for that, though.

Laters!

BC

Everything #cdnpoli needs to know about the #FairElectionsAct via: @globepolitics

A man casts his vote for the 2011 federal election in Toronto in this May, 2011 photo. Elections Canada is going to audit contributions made during the 2011 federal election campaign to nomination contestants, riding associations and candidates affiliated with the same parties. (Chris Young/The Canadian Press)

Everything you need to know about the Fair Elections Act


Canada’s election laws are set to change. A major government bill, the Fair Elections Act, is working its way through the House of Commons but has proven controversial. It’s a big deal, so here’s your crash course.

This page will stay updated as news develops. Submit your own questions by e-mail or Twitter.


Jump to questions:


What is the Fair Elections Act?

Essentially, it changes the rules for voters, candidates, parties and the people whose job it is to make sure elections are fair. Ottawa says it will boost penalties for offences, reduce voter fraud and empower political parties, as opposed to Elections Canada, to drive voter turnout. For some voters, it means it’ll be harder to cast a ballot – a voter will no longer be able to have someone vouch for his or her identity, a system the government argues is too vulnerable to fraud. Political parties will also get an amalgamated list showing if you voted or not, but not who you voted for, while Elections Canada will no longer be able to run advertising campaigns encouraging people to vote.

Reuters

Who’s behind it?

Pierre Poilievre – Canada’s Minister of State for Democratic Reform and, at 34, among the youngest faces in cabinet. Mr. Poilievre has tirelessly stumped for the bill in interviews and in the House of Commons. His go-to line is that the bill gives investigators a “sharper teeth, longer reach and a freer hand.” Many of the changes are meant to reduce fraud and rein in Elections Canada, which he says has failed to boost voter turnout.

What are the changes?

There are a lot. If you have time on your hands and a knack for legalese, you can read the bill for yourself here and look at some of the Chief Electoral Officer’s more detailed objections here. But we’ll give you the short version.

The Globe and Mail

1. Vouching

Under the current rules, “vouching” is the sort of voter-ID catch-all. If you don’t have the proper ID, someone can vouch for you so you can still vote. The list of ways to vote is here. Yes, it raises a question: “Who doesn’t have any ID?” Roughly 120,000 voters in 2011 didn’t, or about 1 per cent of voters. The Chief Electoral Officer says it’s often a case of someone who can prove their identity but not their current address, specifically – such as a student or someone who has moved. The bill also eliminates using a voter information card (the thing you get in the mail saying where to vote) as a way to corroborate where you live. Axing these two options essentially raises the bar on what’s required to cast a ballot, though an extra day of advance voting is being added. Both the current and former chief electoral officer have called, unequivocally, for vouching to be kept, as have provincial and territorial counterparts.

2. Campaign finance

Candidates face limits on what they can spend. This bill would exempt one important thing from those limits – fundraising calls to anyone who has donated $20 or more in the previous five years. Critics call it a new loophole. For instance, the cost of calls to past supporters urging them to support a party again could theoretically be exempted from spending limits if, at some point during the call, a party asks for a donation. This exemption would, presumably, benefit the party with the most donors and the most robust database. At the moment, that appears to be the Conservatives.


Mr. Poilievre argues fundraising is different from campaigning – and that party donors are the most earnest supporters, and therefore don’t often need to be called and reminded to vote. The NDP similarly exempted fundraising costs from spending limits in their leadership race, a point frequently cited by Mr. Poilievre. The NDP say it’s comparing apples to oranges. “There is a huge difference between an internal party race and the federal election,” NDP National Director Nathan Rotman said.


3. The Chief Electoral Officer

The head of Elections Canada is targeted. First, the bill limits what he can say publicly – a gag order, critics say – though Mr. Poilievre has already indicated they will amend this clause.

Critically, the CEO and Elections Canada also won’t be allowed to publicly encourage citizens to vote – as they have with ad campaigns in previous elections – but only give the technical information about where and how to vote. The Conservatives argue it’s up to political parties to drive voter turnout. Former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley told a committee the changes must not go through. If it does, “Canadians will lose their trust and confidence in our elections,” he told a committee.


4. The Commissioner of Canada Elections

Essentially the elections cop, the commissioner investigates people for shady campaigning, though has been criticized as ineffective by watchdogs. The bill will move the commissioner out of Elections Canada and into the officer of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Elections Canada’s current Chief Electoral Officer has warned this provision needs rules guaranteeing he and the Commissioner can still share information.

The former Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, said the change is a neutral one, because of a previous change that already requires the DPP to be involved. “To me, it’s ballgame over on that one and the [latest] change really isn’t affecting anything,” he said.

The bill creates new offences – for impersonating a candidate or elections officials, for instance – and hikes fines for those found guilty.

Elections Canada has also frequently asked for the power to seek a court order to force people to co-operate with investigations, a power held in other jurisdictions. This bill doesn’t offer that – in other words, in trying to tackle fraud, it doesn’t do what Elections Canada has long asked for to combat fraud.


5. Data of who voted

Parties will get “bingo cards” – checklists of which registered voters cast a ballot, and which didn’t. They currently can gather these piece-by-piece at each polling station, but gathering them all would require armies of volunteers and extensive co-ordination. It’s virtually impossible under current rules. This change will allow parties to further develop their databases of supporters.

6. Permission to hire

Currently, Elections Canada needs government approval to pay outside experts. This bill will require EC to seek Treasury Board approval for the hiring altogether. Northwest Territories Chief Electoral Officer David Brock said this should be abandoned, as the notion that Treasury Board might refuse such a request “muddles and undermines the basic relationship between the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and Parliament.”

7. Poll clerks

The bill will allow local party associations – or, failing that, national parties themselves – to nominate deputy returning officers and poll clerks. (Currently, people for these positions can be nominated by the parties’ local candidates.) These are people who help oversee the vote at your local polling station. The Chief Electoral Officer warns the provision has no “operation benefit” and that waiting for nominations may not leave enough time to recruit and train proper officials. Under the bill, the party that won the most votes in a previous election will also be able to recommend people to act as central poll supervisor, a person in charge of a particular polling location. The Chief Electoral Officer says doing so will compromise the non-partisan nature of that role. The NWT Chief Electoral Officer also focused on this provision, saying all election officers – including central poll supervisors – be appointed by Elections Canada “without any influence by a registered political party.”

The Globe and Mail

8. Donation limits

They’re going up – in most cases, from $1,200 this year to $1,500 if passed, and $25 per year after. Two changes, however, will open the door to wealthier candidates, who would be able to donate $5,000 to a campaign or up to $25,000 to a party leadership campaign, specifically. Presently, the limits for those donations are just $1,000, but that’s on top of the $1,200 limit, meaning candidates can give their campaigns $2,200. Under the new rules, the limits are higher but the proposed new $1,500 general donation limit can no longer be tacked on to it.

9. Robocalls

The bill will require robo-calling firms, and people or groups (such as parties) that hire them, to keep a recording of each call, and records of when they were made, for up to one year. It will also require dates and scripts of live calls to be kept for a year. The Chief Electoral Officer has, however, objected to the bill failing to require companies to keep records of what numbers they call. Mr. Poilievre says that would be an invasion of privacy. The bill also creates new offences and higher fines for those caught making fraudulent calls. In short, robocalls can continue. Investigators can hear them and know when they took place – but not who they targeted. Democracy Watch, an advocacy group, argues numbers and other records should be kept for five years. The former chief electoral officer, Mr. Kingsley, suggested 10 years, telling a committee “there’s not much point in keeping it for one year.”

10. Third-party advertising

Outside groups are currently allowed $200,100 in ad spending during an election campaign period. Under the bill, they’ll now be allowed that for anything in “relation” to an election – not just during the campaign itself. This would dramatically reduce the amount groups can spend on political advertising, because the sum outside groups could spend in a campaign – as little as 36 days – would now be applied, theoretically, to a period of four years. Democracy Watch warns it would likely be struck down by a court, but would first put a chill on groups hoping to advertise ahead of the 2015 election, including those intent on advertising against the Conservatives.

Political parties, meanwhile, face no limits on what they can spend on advertising before an election period formally begins.


This all sounds big. How’s it going over?

Not well. Canada’s former chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, initially gave it a grade of A-, but the response from academics and observers has otherwise largely ranged from concern to flat-out opposition. The bill’s tabling triggered filibustering and early polls have shown that the more people know about it, the less they like it (see this one and this one). The Tories tried to push the act quickly through the House of Commons, suggesting they were in no mood to debate the changes. The NDP tried to force cross-country tours for the committee considering the bill, which was rejected. The NDP have since done their own.

So why is it a big deal?

The bill has a lot of critics. They include a group of Canadian academics and a group of international ones. Canadian student groups have objected to the elimination of vouching and other changes. The international scholars, in particular, warn the bill will not only dilute the strength of Canada’s democracy, but set a poor example for fledgling democracies worldwide.

When would this take effect?

Some of it would kick in as soon as it’s passed, and certainly before the next election, expected in late 2015.


What’s the government’s argument?

That this bill combats voter fraud, includes needed updates to campaign finance laws and, in fact, preserves the investigative power of the Commissioner. We spoke with Mr. Poilievre here. You can find their news release here. Mr. Poilievre also wrote an op-ed here.

What’s The Globe’s position?

The Globe editorial board – a group separate from reporters – was not impressed, and wrote a series of five editorials about the Act and even called for it to be killed altogether.

The five-part series: one, two, three, four and five.


You know, Mr. Poilievre’s right. I really like this idea. What should I do?

You could tell your MP. Find him or her here.


I don’t like this bill. What should I do?

You could tell your MP. Find him or her here.

Has the bill passed yet?

Not yet. It’s in committee after passing second reading. Check on its status here.

I have another question…

E-mail us or tweet at us.


This explainer is written and produced by Josh Wingrove, Chris Hannay, Matt Frehner and Matt Bambach.

 

continue reading source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/fair-elections-act/article17648947/

 


Our Question(s)

Below you will find an inquiry we submitted to the Globe and Mail Team…

Greetings Josh Wingrove, Chris Hannay, Matt Frehner, Matt Bambach and Globe Investigative Team,

We are writing this “letter” regarding your rather comprehensive summary article “Everything you need to know about the Fair Elections Act” in response to your “I have another question” to inquire about something that has seemingly eluded the press and pundits. This inquiry is specifically targeting the role that the Treasury Board will play with regards to Elections Canada that the Harper Regime has opaquely implemented last fall and is now being ramped up with the Babylonian Budget Implementation Act aka: Bill C-31.

Since this issue may be the greatest of our day, it would seem as if you may have the adequate resources and contacts to address this. Please bear with us and consider taking a few moments to review the following summary articles that we have compiled on our website. Please note that among other resources, we have also uploaded segments of the Fair Elections Act Committee hearings on our ytube as well.

While the voter suppression issue is very troubling and requires great attention, we believe we have found one of the Trojan Horses that is not getting very much attention. This was also addressed in that slide show presentation on scribd a while back. This segment contains some info about the Treasury Board having to approve the hiring. Craig Scott asks the question and David Brock responds at about the 2 min mark. The reasons why this seems odd/important is due to the fact that when we were looking into conflicts of interest re: the use and abuse of social media for campaign fundraising paid for by tax dollars by the Harper Regime, we were referred to the Treasury Dept website. Here is the provision in the the (un)Fair Elections Act. Now, we can’t be very sure how this may tie in, but it seems like the Treasury Board has a bit too much power to change and/or amend many things without consent and the Regime may well be abusing those powers already. That being stated, below you will find introductions and summaries from various sources along with the links. Please keep in mind that we not journalists, we are a collaboration that relies upon many contributors and creative copypasta’ing of commentaries, so bear with our rather crude approach at summarizing but please take this seriously…

Technical assistance

20. (1) The Chief Electoral Officer may engage on a temporary basis the services of persons having technical or specialized knowledge of any matter relating to the Chief Electoral Officer’s work to advise and assist him or her in the exercise or performance of his or her powers, duties and functions under this or any other Act of Parliament and, with the Treasury Board’s approval, may fix and pay those persons’ remuneration and expenses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fuevldk_PN8&list=PLKm1boxcMsqHzv8s4f2svegffYfqiqYMm

Below you will find brief summaries and links to what we found a while back. Please note that the summary below contains links to three related summaries of interest so they will be posted directly below along with the intro’s. You will also notice that one of your competitors attempted to address this issue on 07Mar2014 and it seems as if the article was subsequently updated 09Mar2014 with some additional tidbits…

“There is a burning question that has been simmering for a bit and one that demands answers before any further attempts by the Conservative Party of Canada, aka: Harper Party, at passing, or shall we say ramming, Minister of Democratic Subversion Pierre Poilievre’s so called Fair Elections Act into legislation.

Is Stephen Harper’s Prime Ministers Office (PMO) subverting and/or violating Elections Canada rules by using taxpayers funds to manage and solicit illegal election donations via social media in preparation for 2015? If so, then another question pops into the equation. Why are the Opposition Parties allowing it to happen and not demanding a Regime change and immediate elections?

This will be a rather short summary primarily consisting of photographic evidence for the visitor to ponder. Below you will find several screen-grabs taken 21 February 2014 of the “official” social media accounts and campaign propaganda donation website that are manged by those kids in short-pants within the PMO. These links were take directly from the following social media pages and lead directly to the Harper Party StephenHarper[dot]ca campaign propaganda website and not the “official” Government of Canada website located at pm.gc.ca. In addition, while researching and archiving back to last summer we noticed that the @pmharper Twitter has also been redirecting visitors to the Conservative[dot]ca website, ConsumersFirst[dot]ca website and cpcconvention[dot]ca website to solicit donations for the Harper Party.”

https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/is-harpers-pmo-using-taxpayers-to-solicit-cdnpoli-election-donations-via-social-media/

“There are even more burning questions that are ever growing and now expanding into a full blown firestorm and we are now demanding immediate answers and actions before any further attempts by the Conservative Party of Canada, aka: Harper Party, at passing, or shall we say ramming, Minister of Democratic Subversion Pierre Poilievre’s so called Fair Elections Act into legislation.

Once again we must ask ourselves a couple of valid questions and below we will once again utilize Twitter to begin our quest and gather more evidence in support of our initial question and summary Is #Harper’s #PMO using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media?

Are Stephen Harper’s appointed Ministers subverting and/or violating Elections Canada rules by using taxpayers funds to manage and solicit illegal election donations via social media in preparation for 2015?

Why are the Opposition Parties allowing it to happen and not demanding a Regime change and immediate elections?

It is worth noting that not all of Harper’s appointed Ministers are engaging in this actively but it seems as if the majority are. In addition there are several Harper Party Ministers that utilize more than on Twitter account and very few of their profile summaries differentiate between the “official” and personal accounts and most contain links to their campaign websites as opposed to the “official Government of Canada website portals. Below, while not all inclusive, we will provide an overview of Tweets and ReTweets as well as utilizing redirection links that are obfuscated via the bit.ly and is.gd short url services.

In addition we are concerned that the government issued devices that we are paying for, such as Blackberry’s, smartphones, computers, laptops and tablets are being utilized for partisan activities, not to mention the time frames in which they are performing these partisan activities is taking away from necessary ministerial functions. In other words, they are campaigning while siphoning off the dole. So basically they are utilizing “company” time while “on the clock” for personal activities, which in the private sector could and usually are grounds for termination or other disciplinary measures. Below you will find examples of questionable conflicts of interest and please note that majority of the archiving was done 21Feb2014 with a few exceptions and that the images contain text archives from the accounts from as far back as possible.”

https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/are-harpers-ministers-using-taxpayers-to-solicit-cdnpoli-election-donations-via-social-media/

“If you notice the inquiry by FMPsportsguy was specifically delivered to the “Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner” who then replied that the Treasury Board website would be the first point of inquiry. So it seems like it will be up to us to sift through the information that is contained on the Treasury Board website that was referenced above to see what applies. We also have to consider how this campaigning fits within the current Elections Act as well as Pierre Poilievre’s Fair Election Act. For now, here are the links to the page and the sections that seem to apply in this case. It is worth noting that in section n “Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks” was rescinded and replaced by “Policy on Acceptable Network and Device Use” updated 2014-03-06, these links will be posted below”

https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/is-harpers-pmo-using-taxpayers-to-solicit-cdnpoli-election-donations-via-social-media-ii/

Below you will find several playlists for your convenience and please note that they are segmented and arranged in sequential order…

#FairElectionsAct #BillC23 #cdnpoli #HOC Procedure and House Affairs Committee Debate 13Feb2014 [4 parts]
Featuring Pierre Poilievre and Tom Lukiwski.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKm1boxcMsqF9vTjCNiCk3lqDaCGURMj3

#FairElectionsAct #BillC23 #cdnpoli #HOC Procedure and House Affairs Committee Debate 25Mar2014 [10 parts]
Featuring former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Northwest Territories Chief Electoral Officer David Brock and B.C. Chief Electoral Officer Keith Archer.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKm1boxcMsqHzv8s4f2svegffYfqiqYMm

#FairElectionsAct #BillC23 #cdnpoli #HOC Procedure and House Affairs Committee Debate 27Mar2014 [11 parts]
Featuring former B.C. chief electoral officer Harry Neufeld, Samara executive director and co-founder Alison Loat, Fair Vote Canada board member Nathalie Des Rosiers, Institute for Research on Public Policy president Graham Fox, and Civix president Taylor Gunn.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKm1boxcMsqHq0H_3k6RgNzE4Sst-ECc8

#FairElectionsAct #BillC23 #cdnpoli [42 videos]
Compilation of various clips.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKm1boxcMsqFL1UDjYPeqVFniC1uSi8u4

In advance we appreciate your attention to this matter and please note that this “message” has been forwarded to other interested parties and will be posted publicly. Unless redactions are specifically requested, any/all replies will be added as updates to our publicly posted versions for transparency and the public’s right to know.

Thank you for your support,
Canadians Against the Harper Regime Collective Research Collaboration

–This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.–

–Le présent message électronique est confidentiel et peut être couvert par le secret professionnel. Il est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur ou si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous devez détruire le message et toute pièce jointe ou copie et vous êtes tenu de ne pas conserver, distribuer, divulguer ni utiliser tout renseignement qu’il contient. Veuillez nous informer de toute erreur d’envoi en répondant à ce message. Merci de votre collaboration.–


Below you will find a slightly modified inquiry sent to various national news outlets and other interested parties…

re: Unaddressed Questions about the Fair Elections Act‏

Greetings,

We are writing this “letter” to inquire about something that has seemingly eluded the press and pundits or at least has been overshadowed. This inquiry is specifically targeting the role that the Treasury Board will play with regards to Elections Canada that the Harper Regime has opaquely implemented last fall and is now being ramped up with the Babylonian Budget Implementation Act aka: Bill C-31.

Since this issue may be the greatest of our day, it would seem as if you may have the adequate resources and contacts to address this. Please bear with us and consider taking a few moments to review the following summary articles that we have compiled on our website. Please note that among other resources, we have also uploaded segments of the Fair Elections Act Committee hearings on our ytube as well.

While the voter suppression issue is very troubling and requires great attention, we believe we have found one of the Trojan Horses that is not getting very much attention. This was one of the issues that was also addressed in that slide show presentation on scribd a while back [http://www.scribd.com/doc/211020015/Elections-Canada-proposals-for-Bill-C-23].

Now, we can’t be very sure how this may tie in, but it seems like the Treasury Board has a bit too much power to change and/or amend many things without consent and the Regime may well be abusing those powers already. That being stated, below you will find introductions and summaries from various sources along with the links. Please keep in mind that we not journalists, we are a collaboration that relies upon many contributors and creative copypasta’ing of commentaries, so bear with our rather crude approach at summarizing but please take this seriously. Here is the provision in the the (un)Fair Elections Act that is concerning to us…

Technical assistance

20. (1) The Chief Electoral Officer may engage on a temporary basis the services of persons having technical or specialized knowledge of any matter relating to the Chief Electoral Officer’s work to advise and assist him or her in the exercise or performance of his or her powers, duties and functions under this or any other Act of Parliament and, with the Treasury Board’s approval, may fix and pay those persons’ remuneration and expenses.

This segment contains some info about the Treasury Board having to approve the hiring. Craig Scott asks the question and David Brock responds at about the 2 min mark. The reasons why this seems odd/important is due to the fact that when we were looking into conflicts of interest re: the use and abuse of social media for campaign fundraising paid for by tax dollars by the Harper Regime, we were referred to the Treasury Dept website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fuevldk_PN8&list=PLKm1boxcMsqHzv8s4f2svegffYfqiqYMm

Below you will find brief summaries and links to what we found a while back. Please note that the summary below contains links to three related summaries of interest so they will be posted directly below along with the intro’s. It is worth noting that one of your competitors attempted to address this issue on 07Mar2014 and it seems as if the article was subsequently updated 09Mar2014 with some additional tidbits…

“There is a burning question that has been simmering for a bit and one that demands answers before any further attempts by the Conservative Party of Canada, aka: Harper Party, at passing, or shall we say ramming, Minister of Democratic Subversion Pierre Poilievre’s so called Fair Elections Act into legislation.

Is Stephen Harper’s Prime Ministers Office (PMO) subverting and/or violating Elections Canada rules by using taxpayers funds to manage and solicit illegal election donations via social media in preparation for 2015? If so, then another question pops into the equation. Why are the Opposition Parties allowing it to happen and not demanding a Regime change and immediate elections?

This will be a rather short summary primarily consisting of photographic evidence for the visitor to ponder. Below you will find several screen-grabs taken 21 February 2014 of the “official” social media accounts and campaign propaganda donation website that are manged by those kids in short-pants within the PMO. These links were take directly from the following social media pages and lead directly to the Harper Party StephenHarper[dot]ca campaign propaganda website and not the “official” Government of Canada website located at pm.gc.ca. In addition, while researching and archiving back to last summer we noticed that the @pmharper Twitter has also been redirecting visitors to the Conservative[dot]ca website, ConsumersFirst[dot]ca website and cpcconvention[dot]ca website to solicit donations for the Harper Party.”

https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/is-harpers-pmo-using-taxpayers-to-solicit-cdnpoli-election-donations-via-social-media/

“There are even more burning questions that are ever growing and now expanding into a full blown firestorm and we are now demanding immediate answers and actions before any further attempts by the Conservative Party of Canada, aka: Harper Party, at passing, or shall we say ramming, Minister of Democratic Subversion Pierre Poilievre’s so called Fair Elections Act into legislation.

Once again we must ask ourselves a couple of valid questions and below we will once again utilize Twitter to begin our quest and gather more evidence in support of our initial question and summary Is #Harper’s #PMO using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media?

Are Stephen Harper’s appointed Ministers subverting and/or violating Elections Canada rules by using taxpayers funds to manage and solicit illegal election donations via social media in preparation for 2015?

Why are the Opposition Parties allowing it to happen and not demanding a Regime change and immediate elections?

It is worth noting that not all of Harper’s appointed Ministers are engaging in this actively but it seems as if the majority are. In addition there are several Harper Party Ministers that utilize more than on Twitter account and very few of their profile summaries differentiate between the “official” and personal accounts and most contain links to their campaign websites as opposed to the “official Government of Canada website portals. Below, while not all inclusive, we will provide an overview of Tweets and ReTweets as well as utilizing redirection links that are obfuscated via the bit.ly and is.gd short url services.

In addition we are concerned that the government issued devices that we are paying for, such as Blackberry’s, smartphones, computers, laptops and tablets are being utilized for partisan activities, not to mention the time frames in which they are performing these partisan activities is taking away from necessary ministerial functions. In other words, they are campaigning while siphoning off the dole. So basically they are utilizing “company” time while “on the clock” for personal activities, which in the private sector could and usually are grounds for termination or other disciplinary measures. Below you will find examples of questionable conflicts of interest and please note that majority of the archiving was done 21Feb2014 with a few exceptions and that the images contain text archives from the accounts from as far back as possible.”

https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/are-harpers-ministers-using-taxpayers-to-solicit-cdnpoli-election-donations-via-social-media/

“If you notice the inquiry by FMPsportsguy was specifically delivered to the “Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner” who then replied that the Treasury Board website would be the first point of inquiry. So it seems like it will be up to us to sift through the information that is contained on the Treasury Board website that was referenced above to see what applies. We also have to consider how this campaigning fits within the current Elections Act as well as Pierre Poilievre’s Fair Election Act. For now, here are the links to the page and the sections that seem to apply in this case. It is worth noting that in section n “Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks” was rescinded and replaced by “Policy on Acceptable Network and Device Use” updated 2014-03-06, these links will be posted below”

https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/is-harpers-pmo-using-taxpayers-to-solicit-cdnpoli-election-donations-via-social-media-ii/

Below you will find several playlists for your convenience and please note that they are segmented and arranged in sequential order…

#FairElectionsAct #BillC23 #cdnpoli #HOC Procedure and House Affairs Committee Debate 13Feb2014 [4 parts]
Featuring Pierre Poilievre and Tom Lukiwski.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKm1boxcMsqF9vTjCNiCk3lqDaCGURMj3

#FairElectionsAct #BillC23 #cdnpoli #HOC Procedure and House Affairs Committee Debate 25Mar2014 [10 parts]
Featuring former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Northwest Territories Chief Electoral Officer David Brock and B.C. Chief Electoral Officer Keith Archer.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKm1boxcMsqHzv8s4f2svegffYfqiqYMm

#FairElectionsAct #BillC23 #cdnpoli #HOC Procedure and House Affairs Committee Debate 27Mar2014 [11 parts]
Featuring former B.C. chief electoral officer Harry Neufeld, Samara executive director and co-founder Alison Loat, Fair Vote Canada board member Nathalie Des Rosiers, Institute for Research on Public Policy president Graham Fox, and Civix president Taylor Gunn.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKm1boxcMsqHq0H_3k6RgNzE4Sst-ECc8

#FairElectionsAct #BillC23 #cdnpoli [42 videos]
Compilation of various clips.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKm1boxcMsqFL1UDjYPeqVFniC1uSi8u4

In advance we appreciate your attention to this matter and please note that this “message” has been forwarded to other interested parties and will be posted publicly. Unless redactions are specifically requested, any/all replies will be added as updates to our publicly posted versions of this inquiry for transparency and the public’s right to know.

Thank you for your support,
Canadians Against the Harper Regime Collective Research Collaboration

–This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.–

–Le présent message électronique est confidentiel et peut être couvert par le secret professionnel. Il est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur ou si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous devez détruire le message et toute pièce jointe ou copie et vous êtes tenu de ne pas conserver, distribuer, divulguer ni utiliser tout renseignement qu’il contient. Veuillez nous informer de toute erreur d’envoi en répondant à ce message. Merci de votre collaboration.–

Replies

Below you will find the replies that we have received thus far to our inquiry in the order in which they were received…

From: Craig Scott, M.P. (Toronto-Danforth)
Official Opposition Critic for Democratic Reform
02 April 2014 @ 10:23 AM

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding Bill C-23, the Conservative Government’s Unfair Elections Act. Please be assured that the NDP is vigorously opposing this bill. I invite you to join our efforts and sign the petition: http://petition.ndp.ca/stand-up-for-canadian-democracy

Last week I put forward an NDP Opposition Day motion to stop the Unfair Elections Act, focusing on measures in this bill that could disenfranchise many Canadians. The motion read as follows: “That, in the opinion of the House, proposed changes to the Elections Act that would prohibit vouching, voter education programming by Elections Canada, and the use of voter cards as identification could disenfranchise many Canadians, particularly first-time voters like youth and new Canadians, Aboriginal Canadians and seniors living in residence, and should be abandoned.” I invite you to read my speech, where I called on my Conservative colleagues to stand up for democracy, here.

You may also be aware that my NDP colleagues and I have been hosting pan-Canadian consultations over the course of the last two weeks to hear from voters and increase awareness about the Unfair Elections Act. I spoke at three of the town halls in Toronto, Ottawa and Dartmouth, and I am pleased to report that they were all full to bursting with people. More and more Canadians are engaged; more and more Canadians are enraged.

As you have pointed out, this proposed legislation will actually make it harder for many Canadians to vote, it muzzles Elections Canada and it gives the Conservative party an unfair advantage. This bill is nothing short of a serious attack on our democracy.

Look no further than C-23’s removal of the right of the Chief Electoral Officer to engage in democracy promotion and general public education. Bill C-23 muzzles Elections Canada by prohibiting the institution from speaking publically about democracy or the importance of voting and from engaging with Canadians through initiatives like the Student Vote Program in schools. During the 2011 election, over 500,000 students across Canada cast mock ballots through the program, an effort designed to encourage them to vote when they turn 18. At a time of record low voter turnout, this change just does not make any sense. You can find a list of their education outreach programs that will be affected on Elections Canada’s website here.

Under Bill C-23, Voter ID cards, issued by Elections Canada, will no longer be accepted. This will make it much harder for students, seniors, aboriginal people, and low-income Canadians to prove their right to vote, and will prevent many thousands of Canadians from voting. That’s on top of the 120,000 Canadians who had a neighbour vouch for them and who will be turned away next election. Conservatives claim that vouching and VICs are the source of widespread fraud, but there is no evidence to support this. Instead, this appears to be a concerted attempt to disenfranchise those with lower incomes or more transient lives with U.S.-style voter suppression tactics.

The bill even bars Elections Canada from conducting electronic-voting pilot projects that might be attractive to younger voters—unless it gets permission from not only the House of Commons but also, wait for it, the unelected Senate – an additional barrier that was not necessary prior to this bill.

The Conservatives also claim that they are taking “big money” out of politics when in fact it creates new ways for “money politics” to skew elections, by raising donation and campaign spending limits as well as creating a huge loophole that allows virtually unlimited campaign spending for purposes of contacting previous donors. Clearly, they are using this bill as a way to try to stack the deck in their favour for the 2015 election, and beyond.

The list of problems goes on. I encourage you to read my longer analysis here (http://craigscott.ndp.ca/the-unfair-elections-act-is-a-con-game). I also invite you to learn more about my efforts to stop this bill, including speeches, media interviews and op-eds, please visit my website: http://craigscott.ndp.ca/news/democratic-reform

Again, thank you for writing. Please be assured that New Democrats will keep up the fight to ensure that Canadians’ voices are heard on a bill so fundamental to democratic voting rights.

Sincerely,

Craig Scott, M.P. (Toronto-Danforth)

Official Opposition Critic for Democratic Reform

Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/craigscottndp

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craigscottndp


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Is #Harper’s #PMO using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media? II

Update re: “Is ‪#‎Harper‬’s ‪#‎PMO‬ using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit ‪#‎cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media?” via @FMPsportsguy status update here: https://pic.twitter.com/6StqbFpzhO. We also published a follow up summary between this update related to Harper’s Ministers titled “Are #Harper’s Ministers using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media?” here: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/are-harpers-ministers-using-taxpayers-to-solicit-cdnpoli-election-donations-via-social-media/

https://twitter.com/FMPsportsguy/status/442442484979732480

@opHarper @jasonfekete good work, here is answer from ethics commisioner to regards to complaint #cdnpoli - (@FMPsportsguy) March 08, 2014

If you notice the inquiry by FMPsportsguy was specifically delivered to the “Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner” who then replied that the Treasury Board website would be the first point of inquiry. So it seems like it will be up to us to sift through the information that is contained on the Treasury Board website that was referenced above to see what applies. We also have to consider how this campaigning fits within the current Elections Act as well as Pierre Poilievre’s Fair Election Act. For now, here are the links to the page and the sections that seem to apply in this case. It is worth noting that in section n “Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks” was rescinded and replaced by “Policy on Acceptable Network and Device Use” updated 2014-03-06, these links will be posted below

Communications Policy of the Government of Canada

18. Internet and Electronic Communication

The Internet, social media tools and other means of electronic communication are powerful enablers for building and sustaining effective communication within institutions and with their clients across Canada and around the world.

An important tool for providing information and services to the public, the Internet facilitates interactive, two-way communication and feedback. It provides opportunities to reach and connect with Canadians wherever they reside, and to deliver personalized services.

Institutions must maintain an active presence on the Internet to enable 24-hour electronic access to public programs, services and information. E-mail and Web sites must be used to enable direct communications between Canadians and government institutions, and among public service managers and employees.

Institutions must advance Government of Canada on-line initiatives aimed at expanding the reach and quality of internal and external communications, improving service delivery, connecting and interacting with citizens, enhancing public access and fostering public dialogue.

Institutions must ensure that Internet communications conform to government policies and standards. Government of Canada themes and messages must be accurately reflected in electronic communications with the public and among employees.

To ensure congruence with other communication activities, an institution’s Web sites, sub-sites and portals must be reviewed regularly by the head of communications, or his or her designate, who oversees and advises on Web content and design.

Web site managers, at headquarters and in regional offices, must consult with communications staff on the editorial and visual content of Web pages, including design and presentation, to ensure publishing standards and other communication requirements are met.

Collaboration is also required between communications and information technology specialists to ensure effective planning and management of electronic information services. Managers and employees responsible for the operational and technical aspects of an institution’s Web-based systems work in consultation with communications staff who provide strategic advice on Web content and the use of technology for communication purposes. (Also see Web site references in Requirement 23, Advertising, Requirement 24, Partnering and Collaborative Arrangements, Requirement 26, Marketing and Requirement 27, Publishing.)

Institutions must:

  1. manage their Web sites and portals in accordance with the Treasury Board’s Standard on Web Accessibility and Standard on Web Usability;
  2. identify on-line information and services, including e-mail messages, in accordance with the Federal Identity Program Policy;
  3. ensure electronic communications conform to the requirements of the Official Languages Act and to the Treasury Board’s Policy on Official Languages, Directive on Official Languages for Communications and Services and Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks;
  4. be connected to the Government of Canada’s Internet and intranet portal sites, the Canada Site and Publiservice, managed by Service Canada;
  5. ensure that Internet-published information on policies, programs, services and initiatives is regularly updated, accurate, easy to understand, and accessible in multiple formats for persons with disabilities;
  6. ensure that printed material for public dissemination is published concurrently on the Internet;
  7. ensure that social media icons displayed on Government of Canada Web sites link to official social media accounts;
  8. when social media icons are displayed to allow the sharing of Government of Canada content through users’ personal accounts, ensure that a disclaimer is displayed in proximity to the icons, that states that no endorsement of any products or services is expressed or implied;
  9. ensure that the address of the official departmental social media account appears on other communications products, such as television or print;
  10. incorporate mechanisms into on-line services for receiving and acknowledging public feedback;
  11. ensure that information about their external public consultations and citizen engagement activities is posted on their Web sites and information, including Web links, is submitted to the Consulting With Canadians Web site maintained by Service Canada (For further policy direction, see Requirement 9, Consultation and Citizen Engagement.);
  12. respect privacy rights and copyright ownership in all on-line publishing and communication – in compliance with the Privacy Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Copyright Act;
  13. ensure that information published on Web sites, prior to posting any changes or updates, is recorded and archived to assure long-term retention and the preservation of institutional memory – with timely and consistent processes for doing so established in consultation with the managers of an institution’s information holdings; and
  14. abide by the Treasury Board’s Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks, Policy on Management of Information Technology, Policy on Information Management, Policy on Government Security and Policy on Privacy Protection.

source: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12316

Note the Date Modified: 1998-02-24 and the next comment will have the “Replaced By” link…

Rescinded – Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks

This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the “Contact Us” page.

Policy Framework

Related Links:

Legislation and Regulations

Replaced By

source: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12419

Once again note the Date Modified: 1998-02-24 which does not accurately reflect the actual date modified…

Rescinded – Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks

This policy is replaced by this or these policies

source: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12419&section=replacedby

Once again the Date Modified: 2014-03-06 does not reflect the correct date of the modification. The “Effective Date” section is as follows and the table of contents are below…

1. Effective Date
1.1 This policy takes effect on October 1, 2013.
1.2 It replaces the Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks of February 12, 1998.
1.3 All policy requirements will be effective October 1, 2013, with the exception of 6.1.3. which will come into effect April 1, 2014.

——————–

Policy on Acceptable Network and Device Use
Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1. Effective Date

——————–

The Policy on Acceptable Network and Device Use will ensure that employees use Government of Canada electronic networks and devices in an acceptable manner and provide employees with open access to the Internet including Web 2.0 tools and services.

source: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=27122

Conclusion

The above policy changes noted are something that should be explored and examined immediately as they relate to use of government resources with regards to campaign solicitations and partisan activities.


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

CDN Professors Open Letter: Don’t undermine #ElectionsCanada #Harper re #FairElectionsAct #cdnpoli

Don’t undermine Elections Canada

National Post
Tuesday, Mar. 11, 2014

A group of professors explains why the government’s proposed changes to our election laws are a threat to Canada’s democratic traditions

We, the undersigned — professors at Canadian universities who study the principles and institutions of constitutional democracy — believe that the Fair Elections Act (Bill C-23), if passed, would damage the institution at the heart of our country’s democracy: voting in federal elections.

We urge the Government to heed calls for wider consultation in vetting this Bill. While we agree that our electoral system needs some reforms, this Bill contains proposals that would seriously damage the fairness and transparency of federal elections and diminish Canadians’ political participation.

Beyond our specific concerns about the Bill’s provisions (see below), we are alarmed at the lack of due process in drafting the Bill and in rushing it through Parliament. We see no justification for introducing legislation of such pivotal importance to our democracy without significant consultation with Elections Canada, opposition parties, and the public at large.

Voter identification

The Bill proposes to dispense with the use of Voter Information Cards (VICs) as a piece of identification that voters can use (in tandem with another piece of officially recognized ID) to prove their identity and address. The use of voter cards is especially important for Canadians who lack ID that proves their current address, such as students, senior citizens in long-term care facilities, First Nations citizens, and those who have recently moved. Although not perfect, VICs are more likely to provide an accurate address than most other forms of ID, including drivers’ licenses. We believe that the elimination of VICs as a valid form of ID in federal elections would reduce the likelihood of voting by some citizens.

Currently, Elections Canada protects the right to vote of citizens who lack standard forms of identification by allowing them to take an oath affirming their identity, citizenship, and residence in the polling division, and having a qualified voter from the same polling division vouch for their eligibility. In 2011, approximately 120,000 citizens relied on the vouching provision in order to vote. By eliminating vouching, the Fair Elections Act would disenfranchise many of these citizens.

The Government argues that vouching presents an opportunity for voter fraud, citing the Neufeld Report on Compliance Review (which was conducted in response to events that occurred in the Etobicoke Centre riding during the 2011 general election) to the effect that a significant proportion of vouching cases were plagued by “irregularities.” In fact, Elections Canada’s Neufeld Report did not cite a single case of fraudulent or ineligible voting arising from the vouching system. To the contrary, the Report recommended keeping the vouching system in place as a protection for citizens’ right to vote, while working to reduce the need for vouching through enhanced use of the very VICs that Bill C-23 would disqualify.

Ensuring fair elections

We are concerned that Bill C-23 would diminish the ability of Elections Canada to protect the fairness of the electoral process. The Bill proposes to remove the enforcement arm of the agency, headed by the Commissioner of Elections, from Elections Canada and move it to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Crucially, the activities of the Commissioner would no longer be reported to Parliament.

Bizarrely, the Bill forbids Elections Canada from promoting democratic participation. It would even be prevented from publishing reports on the electoral process

The Bill also fails to provide the Commissioner with the powers necessary to properly investigate electoral infractions. For example, the Commissioner will not have the power to compel witness testimony, a major stumbling block during the robocalls investigation. Nor will the Commissioner have the power to require political parties to provide receipts and other documentation about their spending, which makes it impossible to ensure compliance with spending limits. Section 18 would prohibit Elections Canada from communicating with citizens about matters such as the robocalls crisis, thereby reducing democratic transparency and accountability.

Bizarrely, the Bill forbids Elections Canada from promoting democratic participation and voting through “get out the vote” campaigns. Elections Canada would even be prevented from publishing its research reports on the electoral process. This gag on Elections Canada would make Canada an outlier among liberal democracies, instead of the global leader it now is.

Campaign finance

Bill C-23 would make several changes to campaign finance and expense reporting after elections. Taken separately, these changes may seem minor, but together they increase the influence of money in Canadian politics.

The Bill would increase the amount that citizens can donate to a given campaign from $1,200 per calendar year to $1,500 per calendar year; more troubling is the proposed increase in the amount of money an individual can contribute to his or her own campaign from $1,200 to $5,000, creating a bias in favour of those with more personal wealth.

Worse, the Bill distinguishes fundraising from campaigning, and then exempts fundraising costs from campaign spending limits as long as fundraising is targeted at previous donors of more than $20. This introduces two biases into the campaign finance rules. First, it disadvantages parties whose donors can contribute only small amounts. Second, it favours parties that have built their donor lists over those that have not. Parties with longer lists of donors over the threshold could communicate, free of cost to their campaigns, with a larger number of electors than other parties.

Allowing money to influence electoral outcomes stands at stark odds with principles of political equality and democratic fairness. In contrast to our neighbour to the south, Canada has consistently recognized that allowing money into the political arena prevents those without financial backing from being heard and discourages participation when citizens perceive that the playing field of politics tilts toward wealth. This feature of Canadian democracy deserves strong protection, not erosion of the sort introduced by Bill C-23.

Partisans at polling stations

Section 44 of Bill C-23 requires Elections Canada to appoint central poll supervisors from lists of names provided by the candidate or party that came first in the last election, favouring incumbents and their parties. Currently, poll supervisors are appointed by Elections Canada. Their role is to oversee the election in each polling station. Electoral irregularities often are the result of partisan calculations by people working in polling stations. That is why the Neufeld Report suggests that “appointing election officers on any basis other than merit is inconsistent with the principle of administrative neutrality, and contrary to predominant Canadian values [and] established international electoral practices.”

Government officials have responded by pointing out that the Elections Act already allows for candidates and parties to appoint other polling station officers, but this does not provide a reason for expanding, rather than eliminating, a practice that undermines voter confidence in the electoral process.

Elections Canada reports to Parliament, not the government of the day. This is important because the rules governing elections have special significance in a democracy. The legitimacy of the entire political system depends on the fair and impartial administration of electoral procedures. It is vital that the rules of democracy be debated in an open and transparent way, shielded from partisan calculations.

Canadian citizens’ trust in the democratic process relies heavily on Elections Canada as the institution that ensures the fair and impartial administration and enforcement of our electoral laws. Full consideration of its advice and experience is vital to the legitimacy of any major changes to those laws. Especially in view of the sensitive political climate in which allegations of electoral fraud remain unresolved, both prudence and fair play demand that the Bill’s proposed changes to the laws of our democracy receive full parliamentary and public debate.

Signed by:

Monique Deveaux, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph

Melissa Williams, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Maxwell Cameron, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Yasmin Dawood, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Patti Tamara Lenard, Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Arash Abizadeh, Associate Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Yasmeen Abu-Laban, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Cameron Anderson, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario

Christopher G. Anderson, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University

Lesley Andres, Professor of Education, University of British Columbia

Caroline Andrew, Professor, Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Barbara Arneil, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Yildiz Atasoy, Professor of Sociology, Simon Fraser University

Chloë G. K. Atkins, Associate Professor of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary

Michael Atkinson, Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Gerald Baier, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Ryan Balot, Professor of Political Science and Classics, University of Toronto

Keith Banting, Professor of Political Studies, Queen’s University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Sylvia Bashevkin, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Ronald Beiner, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Davina Bhandar, Associate Professor of Canadian Studies, Trent University

Laurence Bheher, Associate Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Antoine Bilodeau, Associate Professor of Political Science, Concordia University

André Blais, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Charles Blattberg, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Pierre Bosset, Professor of Public Law, Université du Québec à Montréal

Sophie Bourgault, Assistant Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Leah Bradshaw, Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Penny Bryden, Professor of History, University of Victoria

Gillian Calder, Associate Professor of Law, University of Victoria

David Cameron, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Joseph Carens, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Don Carmichael, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Paul R. Carr, Associate Professor of Sociology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Lakehead University

R. Kenneth Carty, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Julián Castro-Rea, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Simone Chambers, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Mary Chapman, Associate Professor of English, University of British Columbia

Ryoa Chung, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Université de Montréal

Colin Coates, Professor of Canadian Studies, York University

Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

John Courtney, Professor of Political Science, University of Saskatchewan, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Hugo Cyr, Professor of Political Science and Law, Université du Québec à Montréal

Rita Dhamoon, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

Alexandra Dobrowolsky, Professor of Political Science, Saint Mary’s University

Stefan Dolgert, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Mathieu Doucet, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Waterloo

Janique Dubois, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Pascale Dufour, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Avigail Eisenberg, Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

Lynda Erickson, Professor Emerita of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Patrick Fafard, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Katherine Fierlbeck, Professor of Political Science, Dalhousie University

Craig Forcese, Associate Professor of Law, University of Ottawa

Cristie Ford, Associate Professor of Law, University of British Columbia

Andrea Geiger, Associate Professor of History, Simon Fraser University

Elisabeth Gidengil, Professor of Political Science, McGill University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Pablo Gilabert, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Concordia University

Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant, Associate Professor Political Studies, Queen’s University

Joyce Green, Professor of Political Science, University of Regina

Rodney Haddow, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Blayne Haggart, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Marc Hanvelt, Adjunct Research Professor of Political Science, Carleton University

Lois Harder, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Kathryn Harrison, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Matthew Hayday, Associate Professor of History, University of Guelph

Andrew Heard, Associate Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Joseph Heath, Professor of Philosophy and School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto

Matthew James, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

Laura Janara, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Nancy Janovicek, Associate Professor of History, University of Calgary

Leslie Jeffrey, Professor of History and Politics, University of New Brunswick, Saint John

Candace Johnson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Guelph University

Rebecca Johnson, Professor of Law, University of Victoria

Richard Johnston, Professor of Political Science, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Luc Juillet, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Darlene Juschka, Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Women’s Studies, University of Regina

David Kahane, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Willeen Keough, Associate Professor of History, Simon Fraser University

Loren King, Associate Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University

Rebecca Kingston, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

David Laycock, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Patrick Leblond, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Jean Leclair, Professor of Law, Université de Montréal

Lawrence Leduc, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto

Theresa Lee, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Guelph

Rémi Léger, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Hester Lessard, Professor of Law, University of Victoria

Dominique Leydet, Professor of Philosophy, Université du Québec à Montréal

James Lightbody, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Mary Liston, Assistant Professor of Law, University of British Columbia

Catherine Lu, Associate Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Audrey Macklin, Professor and Chair in Human Rights Law, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Colin Macleod, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Law, University of Victoria

Jocelyn Maclure, Professor of Philosophy, Université Laval

Patricia Marino, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Waterloo

John McGarry, Professor of Political Science, Queen’s University

Michael McGregor, Assistant Professor of Politics and International Studies, Bishop’s University

Loralea Michaelis, Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations, Mount Allison University

Éric Montpetit, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Margaret Moore, Professor of Political Studies, Queen’s University

Suzanne Morton, Professor of History and Classical Studies, McGill University

Catherine Murray, Professor of Communication, Simon Fraser University

Christian Nadeau, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Université de Montréal

James Naylor, Associate Professor of History, Brandon University

Jennifer Nedelsky, Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Toronto

Carmen J. Nielson, Associate Professor of History, Mount Royal University

Geneviève Nootens, Professor of Social Sciences, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi

Nancy Olewiler, Professor of Public Policy, Simon Fraser University

Brenda O’Neill, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Michael Orsini, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Martin Papillon, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Steve Patten, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Omid Payrow Shabani, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph

Dennis Pilon, Associate Professor of Political Science, York University

Florence Piron, Professor of Information and Communication, Université Laval

Pablo Policzer, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Philip Resnick, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Kent Roach, Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Douglas A. Ross, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Jason Roy, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University

Claudia Ruitenberg, Associate Professor of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia

Peter Russell, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Paul Saurette, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Carol Schick, Associate Professor of Education, University of Regina

David Schneiderman, Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Christa Scholtz, Associate Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Richard Schultz, Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Leslie Seidle, research director, Institute for Research on Public Policy

Ozlem Sensoy, Associate Professor of Education, Simon Fraser University

Grace Skogstad, Professor of Political Science, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Harry Smalier, Associate Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Education, York University

David E. Smith, Distinguished Visiting Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Jennifer Smith, Professor Emerita of Political Science, Dalhousie University

Miriam Smith, Professor of Law and Society, York University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Patrick Smith, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Robert Sparling, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Mark Spooner, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Regina

Maxime St-Hilaire, Assistant Professor of Law, Université de Sherbrooke

Christine Straehle, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Veronica Strong-Boag, Professor Emerita, Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice/Educational Studies, University of British Columbia, and Past President, Canadian Historical

Association

Lisa Taylor, Professor of Education, Bishop’s University

Melanee Thomas, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Reeta Tremblay, Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

James Tully, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Law, Indigenous Governance and Philosophy, University of Victoria

Luc Turgeon, Assistant Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Patrick Turmel, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Université Laval

Ian Urquhart, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Robert Vipond, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Jennifer Wallner, Assistant Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Jeremy Webber, Dean of Law, University of Victoria

Mark Warren, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Lorraine E. Weinrib, Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Daniel Weinstock, Professor of Law, McGill University

Steven Weldon, Associate Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Graham White, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto at Mississauga, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Lisa Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Margot Young, Professor of Law, University of British Columbia

Robert Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

National Post
More on this Story


Related:

Is #Harper’s #PMO using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media?

Are #Harper’s Ministers using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media?


continue reading source: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/10/mcgregor-anderson-how-the-fair-elections-act-might-actually-hurt-the-tories-in-2015/


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Are #Harper’s Ministers using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media?

Follow up 13Mar2014: Is #Harper’s #PMO using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media? II

There are even more burning questions that are ever growing and now expanding into a full blown firestorm and we are now demanding immediate answers and actions before any further attempts by the Conservative Party of Canada, aka: Harper Party, at passing, or shall we say ramming, Minister of Democratic Subversion Pierre Poilievre’s so called Fair Elections Act into legislation.

Once again we must ask ourselves a couple of valid questions and below we will once again utilize Twitter to begin our quest and gather more evidence in support of our initial question and summary Is #Harper’s #PMO using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media? located here: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/is-harpers-pmo-using-taxpayers-to-solicit-cdnpoli-election-donations-via-social-media/. Be sure to participate in our poll.

  1. Are Stephen Harper’s appointed Ministers subverting and/or violating Elections Canada rules by using taxpayers funds to manage and solicit illegal election donations via social media in preparation for 2015?
  2. Why are the Opposition Parties allowing it to happen and not demanding a Regime change and immediate elections?

It is worth noting that not all of Harper’s appointed Ministers are engaging in this actively but it seems as if the majority are. In addition there are several Harper Party Ministers that utilize more than on Twitter account and very few of their profile summaries differentiate between the “official” and personal accounts and most contain links to their campaign websites as opposed to the “official Government of Canada website portals. Below, while not all inclusive, we will provide an overview of Tweets and ReTweets as well as utilizing redirection links that are obfuscated via the bit.ly and is.gd short url services.

In addition we are concerned that the government issued devices that we are paying for, such as Blackberry’s, smartphones, computers, laptops and tablets are being utilized for partisan activities, not to mention the time frames in which they are performing these partisan activities is taking away from necessary ministerial functions. In other words, they are campaigning while siphoning off the dole. So basically they are utilizing “company” time while “on the clock” for personal activities, which in the private sector could and usually are grounds for termination or other disciplinary measures. Below you will find examples of questionable conflicts of interest and please note that majority of the archiving was done 21Feb2014 with a few exceptions and that the images contain text archives from the accounts from as far back as possible.


Chris Alexander @MinChrisA

aka: @calxandr

Chris Alexander does not seem to be utilizing Twitter appropriately but the official profile summary does contain the official Government of Canada web portal link and there is a distinction between the two profiles where his personal account profile summary contains the link to his campaign site.

Archived content from Chris Alexander  @MinChrisA 08Mar2014
Archived content from Chris Alexander
@MinChrisA
08Mar2014


Leona Aglukkaq @leonaaglukkaq

Leona Aglukkaq does not seem to be utilizing Twitter appropriately and her profile summary links to her campaign website not to the official Government of Canada web portal.

Archived content  Leona Aglukkaq @leonaaglukkaq 21Feb201
Archived content from Leona Aglukkaq @leonaaglukkaq
21Feb2014


Rona Ambrose @MinRonaAmbrose

Rona Ambrose does not seem to be utilizing Twitter appropriately but her profile summary does link to the official Government of Canada web portal.