When Gerry Ritz's extremely outrageous comments regarding the listeria outbreak became public, the Liberal party released an attack ad denouncing it as "a new low".
Now, with a micro-scandal emerging in which it has been alleged that uniformed RCMP officers have been lending a helping hand to Rob Clarke, the Conservative incumbent in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, David Orchard, the Liberal candidate in that riding, has taken aim at the RCMP.
"It's completely unnecessary in a democracy for the national police force to be using its vehicles, openly, on the main street of a town, to drop off signs for a candidate," Orchard lamented. "It's a gesture of intimidation. It's frightening and unacceptable."Only David Orchard could look at an off-duty RCMP officer delivering campaign signs and equate it with the popular cliche of a Texan Sheriff busting out people's tail lights. The Liberal party actually takes the intellectual dishonesty a step further, accusing the Conservative party of "abusing police resources".
If Orchard and the Liberals had merely denounced it as "unprofessional", they'd be right on the mark.
Of course, no one expects to hear Orchard or his party surmising that, considering that Clarke formerly commanded the RCMP detachment in nearby Spiritwood, Saskatchewan, this is simply a case of an RCMP officer helping out a political candidate he supports. Moreover, one he almost certainly knows personally.
The officer in question shouldn't have been delivering signs in uniform. Nor should they have been using a marked RCMP pickup in order to do it.
But for David Orchard and the Liberal party to try to use the RCMP in order to fear monger its way to an electoral victory is beyond shameful.
For Orchard, this ranks right up there with him comparing Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to slave traders.
It's a new low. One may wonder precisely how much lower Orchard could sink yet.
Maybe for his next act Orchard's going to suggest that his door-knockers are being Rodney Kinged. Given his own recent experience with door-knocking perhaps Orchard's colleague Garth Turner could help set that one up.
Actually, David Orchard said it was "completely unacceptable" for the RCMP to take sides in the election. He didn't say "unnecessary." see StarPhoenix article at http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=9295b0b3-4f6b-4fe1-b331-9dc1f49251d4
ReplyDeleteOK with you that the national police force is out campaigning for one of the candidate? OK if he had campaigned for the NDP?
Not sure quite where to start with you here.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, if you want to take exception to the Orchard quote, take it up with the Vancouver Sun. They're the source on this.
Secondly, no one here said it's OK for the RCMP officer to be helping an electoral candidate while in uniform. As much as I hate to quote myself here:
"The officer in question shouldn't have been delivering signs in uniform. Nor should they have been using a marked RCMP pickup in order to do it."
When off duty and out of uniform, these men and women have the right to support any candidate they so choose. But they have a responsibility to keep that separate from their professional lives.
Third, I'm not sure what compelled you to post this comment four times. As such, I shall delete three, seeing as they're all identical.
Sorry about the four times — I'm new to the blog commenting game. Got confused with whether I was signed in or not.
ReplyDeleteThe officer was in uniform and using the RCMP's vehicle. Here's what the RCMP Act says, for good reason:
56. (1) Members shall conduct themselves in public in relation to any political issue, party, candidate or election so that their impartiality in the performance of their duties is not affected and does not appear to be affected.
(2) Unless performing a specific duty on behalf of the Force, a member in uniform or on duty shall not attend a political meeting or take part in any social activity in relation to a political issue, party or candidate.
None of which is in dispute here.
ReplyDeleteI certainly take issue with the RCMP officer in question acting on behalf of the Clarke campaign while in uniform.
However, for David Orchard to accuse the RCMP of trying to intimidate any opponents of Clarke is absolutely shameful. If the Liberal party won't call it low-down, his supporters should.
Who's intimidating who here? Why do you think the RCMP Act doesn't want the national police force interfering in politics? What message do you think it sends to people when they see a Mountie campaigning for the Conservative candidate?
ReplyDeleteUgh. That is sheer, sheer nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIntimidation implies a threat.
Should the RCMP in that riding start paying unannounced visits to people with Liberal party signs on their lawn, you would have a case.
But they aren't and you don't.
This is a case of one RCMP officer acting unprofessionally -- not of the RCMP as an institution trying to intimidate voters.
Give your head a shake.
You're the one who used the word "intimidate, " as in "for David Orchard to accuse the RCMP of trying to intimidate any opponents of Clarke is absolutely shameful." When an officer is in uniform he represents the national police force and the power invested in it.
ReplyDeleteYou find it "shameful" and meant to "intimidate" that someone points out it's unacceptable for the RCMP to use its power for partisan political activity? The RCMP has apologized — they have to uphold the Act and understand the significance of it. You don't seem to be able to do that. How come?
Clearly, you aren't very familiar with Orchard's comments yourself.
ReplyDeleteI hate to quote from my own post again, but:
"It's completely unnecessary in a democracy for the national police force to be using its vehicles, openly, on the main street of a town, to drop off signs for a candidate," Orchard lamented. "It's a gesture of intimidation. It's frightening and unacceptable."
Orchard lobbed the accusations of intimidation, not myself. In case you didn't notice that's what the point of this post was.
At this point, you're really just grasping at straws here and I'm not sure why. The post in question already states that it's wrong for an RCMP officer to be acting on behalf of a candidate while in uniform or on duty.
I'm not sure why you're so desperate to pretend that this isn't so, but you clearly are. You've had it pointed out to you numerous times now, and it's really just starting to make you look more and more transparent.
Feel free to give Mr Orchard my regards, and ask him how comfortable he is running for a pro-free trade party.
A lot of Canadians are curious about that.
Looks like you're close to yielding the point here, since you want to change the subject. I'm not desperate. I just don't like people turning the tables.
ReplyDeleteYou say it was "unprofessional" of the RCMP officer to campaign for Rob Clarke, Conservative candidate, while in uniform and using the RCMP's vehicle. Unprofessional how? Because he broke some little "rule"? Do you think that's why the RCMP apologized? It's because they know — that's why the Act is there — that using the power invested in the national police force for partisan political purposes, or being seen to do so, threatens the fundamental relationship citizens have with law enforcement officers in our society: we trust them with our lives, because we believe them to be neutral, won't use their power for anything but enforcing the law. They indicate that maybe they're not, that maybe they'll use it for backing one political party, one political candidate — that's unsettling and intimidating. And it's good and helpful to tell it like it is, like Orchard did. And it's silly of you to try and mock him and tear him down for taking the RCMP to task for it.
Holy shit. In your dreams.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who first suggested I misquoted Orchard -- a point on which you were demonstrably wrong.
You're the one who suggested I excused the officer in question -- a point on which you were demonstrably wrong.
You're the one who actually tried to suggest that I was the one who brought the issue of intimidation into this entire affair -- a point on which you were demonstrably wrong.
I don't need to change the subject, but I find the subject of your real motivation here quite intriguing. You're over here trying to grasp at straws for something, and quite frankly, I think I know exactly what.
Finally, why would I concede the point in an argument -- one which you embarked upon on demonstrably false pretenses -- that I've already won?