Thought Police - Sister Sage Lost the Narrative

Or probably never actually had it in the first place

Readers of the Nexus may have begun to think that Chickenwanker CK of Sister Sage's Musings was getting a free ride of late.

Were that the case, it certainly wasn't by intent.

The most recent dispatch smuggled from the far side of the Blogging Iron Curtain has CK complaining about the ongoing Conservative-sponsored Senate inquiry into free speech in Canada that has been so splendidly covered by Blazing Cat Fur and shows that CK has a very different take on Canada's Human Rights Commissions than their most reasonable proponents.

The most reasonable propnents of HRCs treat them as an institution dedicated to fighting against and remedying matters of clear discrimination. CK, apparently, has a different vision in mind for Canada's HRCs: that of making bigotry illegal.

That is, frankly, what one feels most temped to take away from something like this:

Contrary to what CK may believe -- and desperately want others to believe -- Canada's Human Rights Commissions do not, by any means, make it not OK to be a bigot.

Rather, existing social norms are what make it OK to be a bigot.

Rather, Canada's Human Rights Commissions -- and their tribunals -- have been abused by a number of activists who would love nothing more than to censor people with bigoted attitudes.

The problem is that such censorship doesn't render bigoted attitudes non-existent. Nor does it even reduce the prevalence of such bigotry. All censorship does is obscure that bigotry from public view.

But as with so many things, one is utterly unshocked to learn that, to CK, this is really just about her hatred of conservatives, and of conservatism:

For someone who is so keen on human rights law, one is actually surprised to learn the full extent to which CK is actually ignorant of it.

For one thing, remarks such as "let's torture the Brown people" and "let's kill all Gays" both meet the definition of hate speech under the criminal code. Complaints over remarks like this would actually have no place in an HRC. Rather, they're a matter for criminal courts.

Likewise, one is surprised to find that CK doesn't seem to understand that just because a school teacher believes that the Holocaust never happened doesn't mean that he can teach that to school children. The curriculum, after all, is decided not by individual teachers, but rather by provincial ministries.

The belief that the Holocaust never happened would certainly challenge the qualifications of a teacher -- particularly in fields such as history. Further, that would be a matter for licensing authorities, not for HRCs.

But in the end, apparently CK's ignorance isn't to blame for her outrage over the notion that her precious institutions of censorship may be eliminated. Rather, we're supposed to blame "evil" Stephen Harper.

As per usual, when CK has lost the narrative, she simply makes up her own.

Individuals like Ezra Levant -- who she also accuses of "selling out" his own people by defending Marc Lemire -- have complained not that the protesters made use of their freedom of speech. Rather, they have complained that the University of Ottawa acted preemptively to cast a chill over the free speech of Ann Coulter, and that the protesters themselves made the event itself unmanageable and unsafe -- even going so far as to set off a fire alarm.

As for Coulter and George Galloway, CK may be shocked to learn that the difference between the two is that Coulter has never directly provided funds to an organization that is listed on Canada's registry of banned terrorist organizations. George Galloway has.

Moreover, CK seems to have omitted the fact that is a bureaucrat at Public Safety Canada -- a public servant -- that ruled Galloway inadmissable to Canada.

In the end, CK concludes, none of this could possibly because conservatives cherish freedom and want to preserve it against the tender mercies of an encroaching thought police-like institution. Rather, it's just because conservatives are hateful, and want to facilitate hatespeech.

But considering that CK herself has an unfortunate history making bigoted comments, one expects that she'll find that to be an awfully tough sale.

Conservative Senators Join CHRC Battle

Finley, Tkachuk, Duffy, Wallin stand up for freedom of speech

Several Conservative Senators have arrived late to the battle to reform Canada's Human Rights Commissions, but they have arrived all the same.

Partially in response to a controversial letter written by University of Ottawa provost Francois Houle to Ann Coulter in advance of a planned speech there (which was cancelled just minutes prior to its scheduled start), Senators Doug Finley, David Tkachuk, Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy have begun to speak out against the censorious labours of Canada's human rights regime.

The four have begun to lead a Senate inquiry into freedom of speech in Canada -- drawing long-overdue Parliamentary attention to the excesses of Canada's Human Rights Commissions.

"Despite our 400-year tradition of free speech, the tyrannical instinct to censor still exists," Finley announced. "We saw it on a university campus last week. And we see it every week in Canada's misleadingly named human rights commissions."

"Too many Canadians, especially those in positions of authority, have replaced the real human right of freedom of speech with a counterfeit human right to not be offended," he continued.

Tkatchuk blamed Houle not only for the letter to Coulter, but also for the mob mentality of the protesters who eventually managed to shut her event down.

"The mob took its cue from the provost," Tkachuk said, and noted (in not-so-charitable language) that Houle's letter was a little extreme. "The letter closed with a line that could have come straight out of the re-education camps of Pol Pot's Cambodia."

Mike Duffy noted that, in cases like those pursued against Ezra Levant and Macl
eans Magazine, the Human Rights Commissions have clearly overstepped their authority, both actual and intended.

"Prosecuting the actions of journalists was clearly not the intention of Parliament when it passed hate speech laws," he noted.

Finley stated that the intention of the inquiry was to draw Parliament's attention to the excesses of the human rights commissions. Even if the inquiry results in no more than that, it has already been successful.

"If we can rededicate our parliament to protecting this most important right, we will have done our country a great service," Finley announced. "But if we fail to stop and indeed reverse this erosion of freedom, we will have failed our most basic duty — the duty to uphold our Constitution and the rights it guarantees for all Canadians."

"In a pluralistic society like Canada, we must protect our right to peacefully disagree with each other," Finley concluded. "We must allow a diversity of opinion — even if we find some opinions offensive," Finley said. "Unless someone actually counsels violence or other crimes, we must never use the law to silence them."

Doug Finley has clearly found the right cause to fight for on Parliament Hill. The battle to reform Canada's Human Rights Commissions will not be won easily -- nor should it be fought quietly.

Take a Fucking Chill Pill, Buddy

Murray Dobbin doth protest far too much

In a recent column published on the ideologically parochial Rabble.ca, Murray Dobbin decries the "Republicanization of Canadian politics".

He claims that recent efforts by the Conservative Party to minimalize the increasingly-suspect testimony of Richard Colvin and recent mailings by the Conservative Party accusing the Liberal party as anti-Semitic are the signs of an unprecedented level of nastiness in Canadian politics:

"Watching the sickening performances of the Harperites in the House of Commons this week -- out right lying, bullying, slander, contempt for the public and parliament, and a stunning disregard for the public good -- brings home a hard reality: we are witnessing the Republicanization of our political culture. And it's not just the torture issue -- it's the Conservative labeling of Liberals as anti-Semitic -- a kind of shit-house rat politics virtually unknown in Canadian political history. It wouldn't surprise me to find that Karl Rove is on the PMO's payroll; his disciples certainly are."

But the truth is that Dobbin, like any good ideological fundamentalist, doth protest way too fucking much.

The truth is that there's far more afoot on either one of these issues than Dobbin would like to let on. Just like any good ideological fundamentalist, he's more than happy to omit any little facts or details that don't support his worldview.

Most obvious about Dobbin's rantings is the absurdity of opposition parties trying to tar the Conservative Party with torture allegations in the first place. Individuals like Dobbin expect Canadians to conveniently forget that it was the Liberal Party who had negotiated the prisoner transfer agreement under which these abuses were allegedly taking place. ("Allegedly" being the key word.)

Dobbin is much closer to a justifiable argument on the anti-Semitism issue. Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae are both known as good international friends of Israel. Irwin Cotler's efforts in support of Israel, as well as in support of the effort to bring Nazi War Criminals hiding in Canada to justice, are well-known and well-documented. To accuse the Liberal Party of being institutionally anti-Semitic simply stretches credulity.

But, then again, many of Dobbin's contemporaries have delighted in accusing the Reform Party -- one of the predecessors of the modern Conservative Party -- of being instituionally racist. They did this despite the fact that the Reform Party consistently presented the most racially-diverse caucus in the House of Commons, and did so without any kind of nomination quotas.

This particular fact didn't stop Gordon Laird, one of Dobbin's premier contemporaries, of fictionalizing racist incidents in his book Slumming It at the Rodeo.

In fact, accusations of racism have often proven to be very effective bread-and-butter issues for critics and opponents of the Conservative Party. To date, Dobbin's objection to this have been slim and none.

Perhaps Dobbin considers anti-Semitism to be a special and privileged breed of racism, of which no one may be accused if those accusations cannot be justified. Or perhaps he's simply content to smile wistfully to himself while similar accusations -- which are similarly unjustified -- are flung at his ideological rivals.

One of the leading purveyors of racial outrage for political benefit has been Warren Kinsella. Kinsella has specialized in an "even if they can show they aren't racist we can still peddle innuendo" argument.

Furthermore, Kinsella has written not one, but two books -- Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics and The War Room -- bragging about his role in bringing US-style attack politics to Canada.

Kinsella was also willing to dabble in a form of bigotry that Dobbin himself was extremely eager to engage in -- anti-religious bigotry.

For Kinsella, the target was Stockwell Day. For Dobbin, it was Preston Manning.

To pretend that the Conservative Party has never indulged in attack politics current Conservative Senator and former Party President Doug Finley is perfectly willing to admit to this.

"We built our brand while trying to damage theirs," Finley recently said. "Stephane Dion was a candidate from heaven. I would say our brand has gone from 17% (core support) to 30%. In other words, that percentage of voters will wake up in the morning and say they will vote Conservative. The Liberal brand has fallen from the mid-30s (core support) to about the mid-20s. As you can see, we have successfully branded Michael Ignatieff as out of touch and in it for himself. We have stopped him right in his tracks. And he hasn't helped himself with some of the gaffes he has made. He's a typical academic. He puts his nose up and talks without really thinking of the consequences of his words. I don't think they did due diligence on this guy."

But considering the depths to which Dobbin and his contemporaries on Canada's far left -- and among the campaign teams of Canada's mainstream left -- are willing to stoop, it's impossible to take him seriously.

After all, it's definitely wrong to baselessly accuse one's political opponents of being anti-Semitic. But it's also wrong to baselessly accuse one's political opponents of plotting to transform Canada into a military police state.

Dobbin's response to that? Again, slim and none.

Fortunately, the ad proved to be the death knell for the 2006 Liberal campaign. But previously, Canadians had swallowed this particular bit of fear mongering.

These facts made Gerard Kennedy's accusations that the Conservative party was campaigning based on fear purely laughable. And they make the next portion of Dobbin's rant seem even more so:

"There is no obvious way to deal with overt and unapologetic political thuggery. Fighting back in the same manner actually plays into the thugs' hands because part of their broader objective is to poison the well of public discourse. The ferocious partisanship of the Harper Conservatives -- who should really be called the Libertarian Party as there is nothing conservative about them -- is designed to drive ordinary citizens away from politics. I can barely stand to watch and listen to the vitriol and lies and I have spent my whole life observing and analyzing politics. I try to imagine what people who have very limited for it must think when they see this performance. But there is no question that it partly explains the fact that 42% of Canadians didn't vote in 2008 -- a huge advantage for the Libertarians."

It takes a special kind of demagogue to pass off that kind of incoherent nonsense as high-minded commentary. Not to mention the fact that Dobbin has to omit huge swaths of recent Canadian political history in order to make that argument.

The truth is that the political thuggery that often characterizes Canadian politics already has been emulated by its former victims -- its former victims being the Conservative Party, both prior to and after the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance.

Certainly, that doesn't excuse the Conservative Party from following the same path. But, then again, there's a big difference between pointing out the lack of leadership skills of a Party leader (Stephane Dion) and impugning the citizenship of another (Michael Ignatieff). The latter is certainly far worse than the former.

But, by the same token, there's a bigger difference still between impugning the citizenship of a political leader and insinuating that one is planning to implement a military police state. Whether or not the latter is worse is a matter of some debate.

Democracy: Coming Not-So-Soon to a Senate Not-So-Near You

Doug Finley forecasts incremental changes for the upper chamber

After Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed 27 Senators in less than a year, one may consider it to be ironic to find one of his new Senators -- moreover, the most blatantly partisan Senator he has to date appointed -- discussing the topic of Senate reform.

Yet former Conservative Party President Doug Finley did precisely that recently, as he noted that it would be small changes that would eventually make Parliament's upper chamber more democratic -- changes that would not require constitutional amendment.

"I'm told a number of changes could be made to the Senate without opening the constitutional grab bag," Finley insisted. "Individual provinces can tell Ottawa how they want to be represented. Personally, if we can get to the point where we have elected senators, I believe we would be where we have to go."

Of course, whether or not elected Senators will be part of that for all of Canada's provinces.

In Ontario, Conservative MPP Bob Runciman recently introduced a bill to have Ontario's Senate nominees elected. His bill was defeated during a Queen's Park sitting in which only 36 members bothered to show up.

A Liberal MPP present argued that Ontario had no role to play in Senate Reform, a suggestion that flustered Runciman.

"To say that the largest province in this country, the most populous province in this country, doesn't have a role to play in this is just bizarre," Runciman said, and noted that he plans to make Ontario's role in Senate reform an issue during Ontario's next election.

For his own part, Finley says that he firmly believes in the importance of the Senate. It's the importance of the Senate that demands it be reformed.

"I believe strongly in the traditional senate role -- sobre, second, independent thought," he continued. "But I believe in an elected Senate. If I have to legislate myself out of a job or run as a candidate, I would be more comfortable with that."

It's big talk coming from a Senator appointed by a Prime Minister who swore he would never appoint Senators -- even if political reality has forced him to do so.

Hopefully, Doug Finley is sincere about Senate reform. That's more important than ever during a time in which Canadians have begun to doubt the sincerity of Stephen Harper on this matter.

Doug Finley: Majority Hunter

Finley needs to keep Harper and he knows it

No sooner has Doug Finley warmed his seat in his first session in Senate than he's put Canada's opposition parties on notice:

The Conservative party is aiming to win a majority in the next election.

Finley, who speculation had suggested would step down from his role as national campaign director for the Tories, insisted that he's going to hold onto that job for the time being.

"I anticipate that's what we'll do. And we'll go for that majority," he told reporters. "I have an excellent team. We're very well prepared, should there be an election — an election we don't want, an election the country doesn't want."

This should come as no surprise to anyone -- especially those who feigned shock at Harper's comments last week in which he told party loyalists that the Conservatives needed to finally win a majority. Although Harper had noted that he was very pleased with a stronger minority after the 2008 election, in order to continue judging his tenure as party leader as successful he needs to continue to improve his successes.

In 2004 he reduced the Liberal party majority government to a minority. In 2006 he won a minority government of his own. In 2008 he won a stronger minority government. At some point, Harper has to either win a majority or quit the game.

At least that's what Algoma University Political Scientist Tom McDowell says.

Another minority could be judged as a setback. Under those conditions "There may be a sense within the party that the party's not moving forward."

"That's the kind of thing that could cause him to leave."

For Doug Finley gaining a majority government may be about more than just majority government for majority governance's sake. It may be the only way for the Conservative party to keep the only truly successful leader it has had in more than twenty years.

So Garth, Could You Take This Up With Your Party?

Turner opposes Harper on Senate appointments, supports Harper on elected Senate

In perhaps the most unshocking turn of events since Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed nine new Senators, former Conservative and Liberal MP Garth Turner announced that he was disappointed in Harper.

More encouraging, however, was the reason why.

"I'm also disappointed in Mr Harper," said Turner, but noted the importance of Senate reform. "I support him on that."

"I think we either need an elected Senate or an abolished Senate," he added.

"Overall, it's a very costly institution that has nothing but a ceremonial role," he continued. "Nobody should be sent to Ottawa who hasn't been sent by the people."

Since he was booted from the Conservative party caucus, very few people should be surprised that Turner is "disappointed" in Stephen Harper. But for Turner to be disappointed in Harper in regard to Senate reform is a welcome change from some of the more blatantly partisan complaints Turner has raised since becoming a Liberal.

Turner's disapproval of Harper's appointmentss unsurprisingly and rightly focused in on Doug Finley.

"He's a political player," Turner said of Finley, whom he also described as "bare-knuckles political operative."

But Turner also noted that the Conservatives most certainly aren't the first party to make such a blatantly partisan appointment to the Senate.

"I know this is not just a Conservative thing," he noted. "Liberals have done it in the past too."

Naturally, however, there is one other forum in which one hopes Turner could take up the cause of Senate reform: namely, with his colleagues in the Liberal Senate caucus.

After all, the House of Commons passed the term limits bill. It's the Liberal Senate Caucus who are holding up the bill, often under the guise of the same specious excuses offered by Stephane Dion.

One more MP who supports Senate reform would be a welcome addition to the Liberal caucus in the minds of many Canadians. It may not even be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that he may be a better alternative to Dufferin-Calderon Conservative MP David Tilson, who offered an unfitting defense of Harper's appointments (even the blatantly partisan ones).

"They're all distinguished canadians," he insisted. "They're all worthy of the job."

As Garth Turner would almost surely remind Tilson, they may not necessarily be any less worthy as many of the appointees who came before them. But that doesn't mean that there weren't many, many better candidates for those jobs.

As Turner would also remind Tilson -- as well as the Premiers of the provinces not currently electing Senators -- the Canadian citizenry may be much better poised to identify those individuals.

Perhaps he could even convince his own party's Senators.

One Supposes That "Elected Senate" Thing Is Looking a Whole Lot Better Now

Stephen Harper appoints underwhelming batch of new Senators

For Canadian opposition leaders who have opposed Senate reform under extremely specious pretenses, one would have to imagine that an elected Senate must look pretty good today.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed nine new Senators to Canada's upper chamber. His choices are far from inspiring.

One has to wonder if NDP leader Jack Layton is rethinking his argument that Canadians would be confused by Senatorial elections when he reviews Harper's new appointments to the red chamber. Perhaps Stephane Dion would have fewer objections to "piecemeal" reforms, as opposed to broad-sweeping reforms, if he stopped to think about it today.

The Conservative party will henceforth be further represented in the Senate by Jacques Demers, former Nunavut Premier Dennis Patterson, Tory election campaign chairman Doug Finley, Conservative party President Don Plett, Linda Frum, Judith Seidman, former Harper spokesperson Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, Kelvin Ogilvie, and Claude Carignan.

While some of the appointments can be justified on the merit of the appointees, some of them clearly cannot. One further is utterly baffling.

So far as the necessary evil -- necessary so long as the opposition continues to oppose Senate form on less-than-inspired grounds -- of appointed Senators goes, Patterson, Frum, Seidman and Oglivie can be easily justified.

As the former Premier of Nunavut, Patterson can bring his expertise to bear on relations between the federal government and the Territories -- something that has been notably neglected over the past few decades. Patterson was also involved in the negotiations that led to the establishment of Nunavut in the first place. As far as unelected Senators go, Patterson is as worthy as any.

Linda Frum Sokolowski, sister of David Frum and daughter of Barbara Frum, spent three years as a board member of the Ontario Arts Council. Her work as a journalist stands apart -- although infuriating to ideological opponents of conservatism (then again, perhaps that's why she stands apart).

Judith Seidman's work as a medical researcher will help round out expertise on matters related to health care in the Senate.

Former Acadia President Dr Kelvin Oglivie also has solid medical credentials. He's considered by many to be a global leader in biotechnology, including genetic engineering. His appointment will certainly broaden the Senate's expertise on bio-ethics.

While these appointments were wisely made, some were not.

Of those appointments regarding which wisdom was rather lacking, Claude Carignan is the most defensible of them. A Conservative candidate defeated in the 2008 federal election, Carignan was also the mayor of Saint Eustache, Quebec. His presence will certainly help the government in terms of municipal affairs.

When one regards the appointments of Stewart-Olsen, Plett and Finley, one simply expected better from Stephen Harper. Their presence in the Senate is as partisan hacks, pure and simple.

The appointment of Jacques Demers is more than a little puzzling. While his story -- becoming an NHL coach and winning the Stanley Cup with the Montreal Canadiens in 1993 -- is inspiring, his appointment shares the same virtues as that of the Liberal appointment of Frank Mahovolich: slim and none.

At least Liberal MP Ken Dryden -- also a former Hab -- and former Liberal MP Red Kelly had to win to get into Parliament.

When one considers that, in Harper's batch of appointments, only four of the nine can be justified based on their own merits, one has to imagine that an elected Senate must look much better to them now.

An elected Senate certainly wouldn't bar partisan hacks from the upper chamber. But at least in an elected Senate, individuals like Carignan, Finley, Plett, Stewart-Olsen and Demers would have to win an election to get into Parliament.

That prospect alone should help still the tongues of those who, out of partisan self-interest, continue to oppose Senate reform.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Joseph Uranowski - Senate Appointments, Harpocrisy, and Awesomeness"

Krista Erickson: Busted!!!

CBC lives up to some of its big talk, but more is needed

One probably shouldn't be surprised to see Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez waving goodbye to CBC Krista Erickson today, as the CBC has announced it's transferring her from Ottawa from Toronto.

Conservatives, meanwhile, probably hate to see her go, but love to watch her leave.

Well, probably at the least the "love to watch her leave" part.

"Following an investigation by senior management of CBC News, we have determined that our reporter Krista Erickson did, in fact, provide questions to a Member of Parliament in the lead up to the Ethics Committee meeting in
December," CBC news editor John Cruickshank wrote in a letter to Doug Finley. "Those actions, while in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate story, were inappropriate and inconsistent with CBC News policies and procedures."

"Our investigation determined there was no bias in related news coverage. However, our reporter, acting on her own, used inappropriate tactics as a result of journalistic zeal, rather than partisan interest," Cruickshank wrote.

Well, of course it did.

"Given the potential risk to the journalistic credibility of our Ottawa bureau, its reporters and CBC News generally, we have chosen on an exceptional basis to make the detailed outcome of our disciplinary process available to you, our employees and the public at large."

"I trust this addresses your concerns."

Actually, not quite.

As previously mentioned, the allegations of collusion between the CBC and any political party raises some serious questions about the CBC, and shakes public faith in the public broadcaster's ability to operate in a non-partisan matter despite the notably lopsidedly partisan character of the board of directors.

The only way to restore public faith in the CBC and answer the questions so many Canadians have come to ask is to hold an investigation in the public eye. A public inquiry is needed.

While admittedly, the break with CBC policy insisting the identities of disciplined personell would not be made public suggests the reported conclusions are indeed genuine (it's a tremendous show of good faith), Canadians also deserve certainty.

The conclusions simply do not deliver in this regard.

John Cruickshank should encourage Stephen Harper to call a public inquiry into what will likely henceforth be known as the "Krista Erickson affair" so that it can be determined how, if at all, prevalent indiscretions similar to Erickson's are amongst CBC staff, and if any CBC staff are acting in benefit of any political party, regardless of which party that may be.

CBC Lives in Glass House, Throws Stones

CBC claims about transparency are utterly laughable

In the most recent development in the allegations that an as-yet unnamed CBC reporter fed questions to Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, the CBC has finally broken its silence...

...about a Conservative party fundraising letter.

In the letter, CBC news publisher John Cruickshank castigates Conservative party campaign chairman Doug Finley for spreading cynicism throughout the political process:

"Dear Mr. Finley,

I have reviewed your pre-Christmas fundraising letter.

I write this public response to you because I believe that by its inaccuracy, innuendo, exaggeration and expressed malice towards hundreds of Canadian journalists you risk damaging not just your target, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but also public faith in our political process.

I understand that a private association like the Conservative party does not have the sort of transparent and reliable complaints process that we have at the CBC. That is regrettable.

I understand that you have already availed yourself of access to our Ombudsman, complaining that a member of the CBC News staff communicated suggested questions to Liberal MPs in advance of a public hearing. I appreciate this show of confidence in the integrity of our process. I wish you had reflected that respect for our commitment to answer any and all complaints about our work in your unfortunate letter to potential donors.

You were well aware when you sat down to write your appeal for cash that CBC News had publicly condemned the behaviour you complain of and had called a disciplinary meeting to look into it.

Your suggestion to your potential contributors that the CBC was waging a partisan campaign against your party and the government of Canada was flatly contradicted by every step we had taken before you composed your cash appeal.

We accept that you are not the only, or even the first, Canadian political party to use CBC News as a whipping boy for fundraising purposes.

The Liberal party accused us of bias on several occasions when it fit their agenda.

As a public broadcaster we take our responsibilities to all Canadian shareholders very seriously. This is more than just a glib promise. Unlike any other broadcaster in the country, the CBC has a journalistic standards and practices book. This book is given to each reporter, producer, editor and host working at the CBC. It outlines in explicit detail the code of conduct for our journalists. It covers conflict of interest; it covers issues of journalistic fairness and balance. It is clear, and it is binding. It is also a living document. We talk about it and refer to it daily when we are dealing with difficult ethical issues. It is also freely available to the general public to see, so they know exactly what standards we aim to maintain.

I would be delighted to share a copy of it with you.

CBC News is especially sensitive to how we cover partisan political debates. The CBC is non-partisan. We do not want to be seen to be a creation of any party (although, as you know, it was a Progressive Conservative government that brought our organization into being.)

While all our journalists try to live by our code of conduct, CBC News is not infallible. But we are accountable. When there are errors of judgment, or misunderstandings or improper interpretation of the journalistic standards and practices, we investigate. When we discover shortcomings, we change our standards and practices.

No other news organization in the country operates within such a demanding ethical regime. For you to sully the reputations of so many dedicated Canadian professionals is utterly unacceptable. Your denigration of our ethical standards can only contribute to the public cynicism about public life that is already far too pervasive.

Yours sincerely,
John Cruickshank,
Publisher,
CBC News"

Of course, Cruickshank's letter seems to overlook a number of problems regarding the overall situation.

First off, he insists the CBC's process for dealing with complaints is "transparent and reliable". Yet, the CBC has already promised it will not be releasing the identity of the reporter in question. Not only will the public not have the benefit of knowing to whom to attribute this clear case of misconduct, but the individuals who will have to interact with him or her will not know, either. They certainly have the right to know about the ethical standing of any potentially disreputable reporter, so that they may make an informed choice about whether or not they wish to take the risk of dealing with that reporter.

In fact, the entirely behind-closed-doors disciplinary process practically ensures that the various questions that need to be answered won't even be asked.

Questions that also deal with the notable ambiguity of key passages of the very code of conduct that Cruickshank alludes to. (An email directed to the "transparent and reliable" CBC ombudsman, Vince Carlin, regarding this last particular matter has yet gone unanswered.)

Cruickshank's big words aside, a great many Canadians are calling for some accountability from the CBC, but we have yet to see it.

It's a very frustrating position to be in to find that one cannot have their questions about the operation of a publicly-funded organization answered. We've been asking them for weeks.

Cruickshank's stonewalling in the wake of Finley's fundraising letter (the greater implications of which are discussed elsewhere) only stands to reinforce the fact that a public inquiry is the only way Canadians will get the answers about the CBC that they deserve.

Will John Cruickshank finally begin answering some questions, or will he at least advise Prime Minister Stephen Harper to start the process by which these questions can be answered publicly?

The time for an answer to this question, and to many others, is now.

Conservatives Should Be Wary of Their Rhetoric

Media martyrdom may make for good fundraising, but bad politics

With a 2008 election possibly in the cards, the Conservatives -- like all of Canada's political parties -- will need every dollar they can get their hands on.

Apparently, they're banking on outrage over the recent allegations of collusion between the Liberal party and the CBC. In a fundraising letter, Conservative party campaign director Doug Finley is urging Conservative party members to contribute whatever they can to help the party win what he predicts will be an uphill battle:

"Let's face the facts.

Running as a Conservative in Canada is never easy.

The Liberals have long benefited from the support of the country's most powerful vested interests. And the NDP has always been backed by the country's loudest vocal interests.

And now it has been revealed that representatives of the CBC – the CBC that you and I pay for with our taxes – worked with Liberal MPs to attack our Government's record on a House of Commons committee.

That's right. Former Liberal Cabinet Minister Jean Lapierre – now a journalist with the TVA network – told CTV Newsnet that questions posed by Liberal MPs in House Committee were written by the CBC.

"I knew all about those questions. They were written by the CBC and provided to the Liberal Members of Parliament and the questions that Pablo Rodriguez asked were written by the CBC and I can't believe that but last night, an influential Member of Parliament came to me and told me those are the questions that the CBC wants us to ask tomorrow."
-Jean Lapierre, CTV Newsnet, December 13, 2007

Lapierre's stunning revelations shocked me. And having listened to Canadians' feedback on talk radio and read their comments on the blogs I know they probably shocked you too.

The CBC even admitted to Canadian Press that its behaviour in this instance was both "inappropriate" and "inconsistent" with the Corporation's policies and practices.

Sadly, this is not the first time our taxpayer-funded public broadcaster has found itself caught up in an embarrassing anti-Conservative controversy.

During the 2004 election campaign, it was revealed that CBC tried to stack a town hall-style meeting with Stephen Harper with people who were "scared, freaked out or worried about the Conservatives, the Conservative agenda or its leader."

And following our 2006 election victory the CBC publicly expressed "regret" after one its journalists was exposed using footage of Stephen Harper totally out-of-context and in a way that distorted the Government's position.

So what does this all mean?

In the coming weeks and months Canada could be headed into an election forced by Stéphane Dion's Liberals.

We may not have the support of the Liberals' powerful allies. (As Campaign Director, I can assure you that the CBC will not be writing Stephen Harper's questions for his debate with Mr. Dion). But we do have the support of people like you. Proud Canadians who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules.

I would ask that you make a contribution - $200 or $100 – whatever you can afford to ensure the Conservative Party has the resources it needs to take on the Liberal Party and its vested interest allies.

We will need all of the money we can raise in order to fight back with paid advertising, direct voter contact and candidate support when the Liberals - and their vested interest allies – begin to attack our record, our leader and our plans for Canada's future.

People like you are the backbone of the Conservative Party, the only party that stands up to the vested and vocal interests who so desperately want to go back. Please contribute today so we can keep Canada moving forward under the strong leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper."

In theory, the letter may bring in precisely the results one simply knows Finley is hoping for.

Needing money to overcome the machinations of a powerful media enemy may look good on a partisan fundraising letter, but it overlooks a number of basic political realities.

The Conservatives may be overestimating the value of money to a political campaign. Certainly, one can't mount a campaign without it, but masses of money doesn't guarantee political success. This is a lesson the Conservatives should have learned by now, having out-fundraised the Liberals since what seems like the dawn of time, the Conservatives have all too often come up short electorally.

First off, one has to consider the key differences between "earned media" and "paid media". Paid media consists of TV, radio and newspaper ads that are paid for by the party. Earned media consists of media exposure earned by releasing policy statements, criticising political opponents, or staging photo ops.

Earned media is infinitely more valuable than paid media, because earned media is what makes a party seem like it matters. A party that seems unnewsworthy by necessity also seems inconsequential. Being deemed insignificant is a political death warrant by any means.

Secondly, no amount of money can elect a candidate that is unlikable.

As Steven Levitt and Michael Dubner remind us, money can't force people to cast their ballot in favour of a candidate. In examining US congressional campaigns in which opponents ran against one another on consecutive occasions, Levitt and Dubner concluded that in some cases, 50% of money spent by a candidate could account for as little as 1% of their vote total.

Levitt and Dubner basically concluded that in elections, previously defeated candidates had a tendency to spend more money, while incumbents had a tendency to spend either the same amount, or less. However, despite expectations that the higher-spending candidates would at least perform better, voting patterns didn't always correlate to the amount of additional spending.

In short, money doesn't have quite the impact on politics that some imagine.

Even with Liberal fundraising figures languishing in the basement, the Conservatives are far from guaranteed to ski down mountains of cash and back into 24 Sussex Drive. In a future election they'll have to earn their way back into power.

If they want to do so, they'll need to earn media coverage, and control their message stringently enough to ensure that such coverage will be favourable.

Complaining about a hostile CBC and throwing money to the four winds is a recipe for electoral disaster.

The alleged collusion between the Liberals and the CBC is, indeed a serious matter. But milking this controversy for the purposes of fundraising may send a message to the Candian electorate that the Conservative party may not be altogether comfortable with.

To those in the know, it suggests the party may be out of touch with some basic political realities.

The Conservatives need to call a public inquiry into the collusion allegations, and let that matter take care of itself. Scrambling to raise money on the back of these allegations only makes the party appear weak and unable to conduct a political campaign in the media.

The Conservatives may inspire a windfall of fundraising cash with this issue, but they'll do themselves more favours by simply getting down to the business of conducting politics. That will involve dealing with the media including, inevitably, the CBC.