Politically-correct BS . . .

ACCORDING TO THE GLOBE & MAIL, Dire Straits' smash hit "Money for Nothing" has been BANNED on Canuck airwaves. Why? Because of the word "faggot". Really.

The 1980s song Money for Nothing by the British rock band Dire Straits has been deemed unacceptable for play on Canadian radio.

In a ruling released Wednesday, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council says the song contravenes the human rights clauses of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code.

The panel noted that Money for Nothing would be acceptable for broadcast if suitably edited.

Well, here's a great version, with ol' Slowhand to help Mark out. Aw, that ain't workin', you play yer guitar on the MTV . . .

All political, all the time...

Everything is political. The Harperites know all. If science, including bona fide peer reviewed research, doesn't fit their illusion of ice cream coming from an irritating little truck spewing pollution, it doesn't make it to the page. Even though you pay for it.

Via Impolitical comes the latest in the Harper attempt to muzzle everyone and everything in government, including science carried out by research departments at universities. (Emphasis mine)

The Harper government has tightened the muzzle on federal scientists, going so far as to control when and what they can say about floods at the end of the last ice age.

Natural Resources Canada scientists were told this spring they need “pre-approval” from Minister Christian Paradis’ office to speak with national and international journalists. Their “media lines” also need ministerial approval, say documents obtained by Postmedia News through access-to-information legislation.

The documents say the “new” rules went into force in March and reveal how they apply to not only to contentious issues including the oilsands, but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago.

Why? Because the Harperites live in fear that their continuing big lie will be exposed. Any fragment of actual knowledge needs to be suppressed. If it isn't parades, ponies and ice cream, it doesn't fit their public presentation. If, after the last ice age there was massive flooding, someone might relate that to the melting of the ice caps and, instead of the loss of the caps being a good thing, it might be viewed as a disaster.

Can't allow that. Harper conservatives are all about sunshine and daisies - blown right up your ass.

“It’s Orwellian,” says Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at University of Victoria. The public, he says, has a right to know what federal scientists are discovering and learning.

And you can see the problem right there. "Climatologist". To a Harper conservative that is the enemy.

The documents show the new rules being so broadly applied that one scientist was not permitted to discuss a study in a major research journal without “pre-approval” from political staff in Paradis’ office.

NRCan scientist Scott Dallimore co-authored the study, published in the journal Nature on April 1, about a colossal flood that swept across northern Canada 13,000 years ago, when massive ice dams gave way at the end of the last ice age.

The study was considered so newsworthy that two British universities issued releases to alert the international media.

It was, however, deemed so sensitive in Ottawa that Dallimore, who works at NRCan’s laboratories outside Victoria, was told he had to wait for clearance from the minister’s office.

Dallimore tried to tell the department’s communications managers the flood study was anything but politically sensitive. “This is a blue sky science paper,” he said in one email, noting: “There are no anticipated links to minerals, energy or anthropogenic climate change.”

And it didn't just stop at approval. Everything was to be stage managed.

Robson asked Dallimore to provide the reporter’s questions and “the proposed responses,” saying: “We will send it up to MO (minister’s office) for approval.” Robson said interviews about the flood study needed ministerial approval for two reasons: the inquiring reporter represented a “national news outlet” and the “subject has wide-ranging implications.”

Andrew Weaver holds nothing back. I suspect, if the Harper government lasts much longer we'll be hearing more about Dr. Weaver and it won't be pleasant.

The control and micro-management points to a high level of “science illiteracy” in the upper ranks of the federal government, he says, and “incredible disrespect” for both the researchers and the taxpayers footing the government’s multi-billion-dollar science bill.

“The sad reality is that these guys in Ottawa think federal scientists work for them,” says Weaver. “They don’t, they work for the people of Canada.

“This is science funded by Canada for the public good,” he says. “It is not science funded to produce briefing notes for ministers so they can get elected in the next federal campaign.”

Right. And Shari Graydon adds some appropriate shading to the problem. This is not just science; it's everything.

The flat earth theory was discredited quite a few centuries ago and “evidence-based practice” is all over the Internet, so it’s not like the tradition is a little-known secret. So what would it take for Canadians to insist that the decisions being made about our collective future be informed by verifiable knowledge?

Consider this as one citizen’s plea for scientists of all stripes to step onto the information highway in all its forms a little more often, to challenge governments and voters alike to demand that policies and spending be backed up by reliable and independent data.

The problem, of course, is that Harper and his hillbilly caboodle react to any challenge with a singularly unimaginative response and abuse of power. They smear the challenger publicly and then remove that person from arena.

Some of the Harper troglodytes will tell you that none of the micro-managing actually affects the day to day life of Canadians. That, however, is simply not true. Ministerial interference and political meddling has reached right into the next six hours of your life. Not even your weather forecast is safe. (More on that in the future)

Related.

Canadian reporters banned from Gitmo

Skdadl reports that Michelle Shephard of the Toronto Star, Steven Edwards of Canwest, Paul Koring of the Globe & Mail, and Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald have been banned by the US Dept. of Defense from covering any future trials at Gitmo because they divulged the names of two interrogator/witnesses at Omar Khadr's kangaroo pretrial.

Well it's a wee bit late for that, isn't it? Michelle Shephard already published the names and part of an interview with one of those witnesses in The Star nearly two years ago :

"Sgt. Joshua Claus was a slight, blond soldier with little experience and lots of responsibility when he became Khadr's interrogator in the cavernous U.S. prison in Bagram detainees nicknamed "The Barn."

Claus would later be convicted for his role in the death of another detainee at Bagram – an innocent Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar. Claus pleaded guilty to maltreatment and assault in return for a five-month jail sentence in 2005.

During the only interview Claus has granted, he told the Toronto Star any allegations of Khadr's mistreatment were false. "They're trying to imply I'm beating or torturing everybody I ever talked to," Claus said.

This ban means that the very reporters who've been providing such excellent coverage on Omar Khadr for years - Shephard has written a book on it - will not be able to report on his show trial when it finally gets underway.

Skdadl's source at Empty Wheel sums it up :

"So DOD is basically saying that once a reporter agrees to go to Gitmo, they lose the ability to report on stuff they have already reported on."

A week ago the military judge ordered reporters and spectators out of this same Gitmo courtroom while 'classified' video of an interview with Khadr was shown. The reporters adjourned to the media room and watched it on youtube instead.

Dear 800 pound gorillas at Facebook...

You are displaying all the attributes of complete morons.

Apparently, Facebook, that faceless social networking giant that really wants to be the market square, inner-city pub and urban playground of the world, doesn't like the idea of someone depicting the image of an infant being fed by its mother.

In fact, Facebook deleted the artwork of Kate Hansen because... well, why don't we let her explain. We'll wait here.

Ms. Hansen's art is, at least by my reckoning, hardly what I'd call hateful, threatening or obscene. Yet that is the only explanation Facebook provided Kate for removing her artwork: That somehow it fell into one of those categories.

The women in Kate's art aren't even fully nude. There are no body parts showing that you can't see at a christian temperance league barbeque and beach gathering.

What is it that Facebook thinks is hateful, threatening or obscene? Could it be the actual act of breastfeeding?

Time to give Facebook some dairy queen time.

Hat tip - Gregor

If things were going well in Afghanistan...

This wouldn't be happening. (Emphasis mine)

This refusal to allow reporting of certain combat actions is one of the odd experiences of being at war with the Canadian military and I have complained about it for years, as have others. But the gag order on embedded reporters in Kandahar continues.

The excuse the Canadian Forces gives is that Taliban guerrillas might learn from immediate media accounts whether their warheads had hit a target or not, which would allow them to recalibrate.

That's a legitimate concern even though most Taliban firing isn't that sophisticated. Rockets are simply hurriedly stuck in the ground at a rough angle and fired off, usually to no effect.

However, I accept the need for caution and so I am not offering up the exact time or location of these incidents. But there should clearly be limits to all this secrecy.

What really concerns me here is that a tally of rocket attacks on Canadians never does get out. Not even days or weeks later, after a safe passage of time.

It's simply as if they never happened, and such censorship distorts our own sense of the war and its changing tempo.

Something most of our closest allies are aware of and realize that, if such stringent censorship was ever exposed, it would come back to bite them.

This is interesting because Canadian officers have become extremely skilled in recent years in appearing open towards the media, which they are compared to most Harper government departments.

Still, neither of our principal allies, the U.S. and British, imposes the same OPSEC restrictions that Canada does. They are more open.

So, if they're hiding the obvious ineffective rocket attacks from the Canadian public... what else are they hiding?

And who ordered them to hide it?

More from M@ and POGGE.

Sorry isn't good enough

I appreciate that the police in Vancouver have a difficult job to do right now what with the wave of gang violence engulfing the city, but the police have absolutely no right to seize cameras from journalists or any individual who is taking pictures at a crime scene, whether it interferes with their investigation or not. They are within their rights to request that news organizations not publish information that might impede an investigation, or to ask individuals to come forward with photos or videos of crimes, but the decision of what to do with such private property is up to the owner. The officer who assaulted the news photographer and threatened him with arrest should be fired immediately. This kind of conduct is illegal and a violation of a host of constitutional rights. In light of the actions of the police in the Dziekanski killing at the Vancouver airport and the attempt by the RCMP to confiscate evidence of their misconduct, and a cop in Ottawa not so long ago, this kind of thing cannot be tolerated by a free society. It isn't as if the Vancouver cops haven't been accused of this kind of thing before either.

"Giving the finger" - now officially less obnoxious than urinating on bystanders

The Ontario Film Review Board has added "giving the finger", as demonstrated here in the Canadian House of Commons, to its list of infractions that contribute to a film being reclassified "from a General (G) designation into the Parental Guidance (PG) category".

But wait! Here's the best part. According to the guidelines in the 32-page manual, "the gesture ... is rated the equivalent of an animal humping someone's leg - more obnoxious than "a little bit of farting, belching", but "less obnoxious than a teenager vomiting and his friend urinating onto bystanders".
.
Unfortunately I don't have a HoC photo to illustrate that.
.

Cross-posted at Creekside

Popline makes abortion a dirty word

Don't know what Popline is? Popline is a reproductive health data base funded by USAID. In their own words:

POPLINE^®(POPulation information onLINE), the world's largest database on reproductive health, containing citations with abstracts to scientific articles, reports, books, and unpublished reports in the field of population, family planning, and related health issues. POPLINE is maintained by the INFO Project at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs and is funded by the United States Agency for International Development. (USAID).

POPLINE contains nearly 360,000 records and has been maintained since 1973 by the INFO Project (formerly Population Information Program). The majority of items are published from 1970 to the present, however, there are selected citations dating back to 1827. The database adds 12,000 records annually and is updated every Monday.

In addition to free text searching, the database can be searched by keywords from the POPLINE Thesaurus , a controlled vocabulary of 2,400+ terms used to index documents in the database.

POPLINE's special features include links to free, fulltext documents; the ability to limit your search to peer-reviewed journal articles; RSS feeds for topical searches; and many abstracts in French and Spanish.

But it seems, on April 1st, USAID and Popline adjusted their search function to add a few stopwords and some researchers noticed. (An email exchange you won't want to pass over.)

This is where you get to play a bit of a game. Go to the Popline search page and type in "Abortion".

The answer you'll receive from the world's largest reproductive health database is No records found by latest query. This, despite the fact that Popline has a library brimming with articles and peer reviewed papers on abortion. Popline has blocked search access to over 25,000 records.

Now go to Popline's search page and type in "Abstinence".

Result: 3940 records returned.

As Jurassicpork says,

The Cristopaths win again. Please play again after the elections!

And do hit Jurassicpork's link to the Mexico City policy of the Reagan era which was neatly resurrected by George W. Bush and his theocratic masters.

UPDATE: It appears Popline made a small adjustment to their search function. Searches for "Abortion" and "abortion" are now suddenly returning records. Slowly they are increasing in number with each subsequent search. Thanks to Mike in comments.

Evangelist leader bites McVety

The Christian evangelist community appears to be taking a dim view of Charles McVety's activities: (Emphasis mine)

John Stackhouse, religion professor at Regent College in Vancouver, is more direct: "My first reaction [upon hearing about the government's tax credit move] is if it came from Charles McVety, it's probably a bad idea. He is usually going public in a way that I wish he wouldn't."

Prof. Stackhouse said he shares many of Mr. McVety's commitments to fundamentalist Christianity. He listed a number of topics - hate speech, corporate advertising, pornography - that he doesn't believe should get government funds. However, in a free and pluralistic society, he said, the decision of what art is should be left to recognized artistic communities, not government staffers, even if that means offending one person or many people.

"The only alternative is either ideologically correct art, which is just propaganda," he said, "or banality."

By pushing for this kind of change, Prof. Stackhouse said, Mr. McVety gives credence to the theory that conservative Christians, if given absolute control, will turn Canada into a purely conservative Christian nation.

"Charles McVety is the nightmare that the Liberals want us to worry about," he said.

Especially when he's roaming the halls of the Centre Block.

Your government is being run by Christian Dominionists

Yeah. Thanks for taking the shroud off the agenda. Christian dominionist, Charles McVety, is taking full credit for a change in the Income Tax Act which allows the federal government to censor anything McVety finds doesn't meet his Christian zombie brigade agenda.

A well-known evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and "numerous" meetings with officials in the Prime Minister's Office.

This slimy piece of work is exactly what the Harper government is all about. In January 2006, just before election day, I wrote this about Harper and the coalition of Christian right-wing freaks that had gathered around him.

Harper gathers support, either through candidates or directly, from groups which will expect their social issues to receive priority on any Conservative government order paper. Vote Marriage Canada, The Promise Keepers, Focus On The Family Canada, R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, Canada Family Action Coalition and Campaign Life Coalition are some of the groups which support the Harper campaign by either promoting their candidate or openly supporting the Conservative Party of Canada platform. All of these groups are homophobic, most are anti-abortion and most pursue an extreme right-wing christian agenda. While some claim to be non-partisan, that suggestion is quickly dispatched with one look at their election literature. Many of these groups are Canadian branches of larger US bodies led by proselytizing christian extremists.

[...]

As much as Harper preaches "less government" he only means it in terms of taxation and delivery of programs. When it comes to social governance, a Conservative government would be in your face, in your bedroom and likely listening to your phone calls.

At the time several readers responded suggesting I was overstating the situation and being deliberately hyperbolic.

So, tell me which part of that prediction isn't now coming true?

After Harper's narrow minority victory in 2006, McVety was one of the first people invited to the Prime Minister's office. In September 2006, Marci McDonald wrote the cover story for The Walrus providing a glimpse of how ingrained the Christian dominionists had become in the Harper government. She too, was largely dismissed as exaggerating the problem even though we now knew what McVety was all about.

During the last election, as head of a handful of pro-family lobbies including the Defend Marriage Coalition, McVety emerged as a power to be reckoned with. He bought up the rights to unclaimed Liberal websites such as josephvolpe.com and stacked a handful of Conservative nomination contests in favour of evangelical candidates adamantly opposed to same-sex matrimony, a campaign he has vowed to repeat. As Harper navigates the tricky waters of minority rule—keeping the lid on any eruptions of rhetorical fervour from the rambunctious theo-cons in his caucus—it is noteworthy that he has continued to cultivate a man regarded as the lightning rod of the Christian right. Last spring, those around the prime minister drafted McVety to help sell the government’s contentious child-care policy, and on budget day he was the personal guest of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in the Commons’ vip gallery.

This latest move is intended to shut down Canadian film and television productions which don't pass the "Disney" test of McVety's living room. But worse, far worse, is the absolute fact that a rabid Christian dominionist has penetrated government and is now writing policy.

If you think McVety wasn't behind Bill C-484, think again. It's right on the front page of McVety's Family Action Coalition website.

McVety clearly has a strategy: Get the thin edge of various Christian dominionist wedges into government policy and when the time is right, drive them in as deep as possible. McVety wants a Christian evangelist theocracy and Harper is more than happy to lead it for him. Anything for power.

And while McVety is proudly taking credit for his attack on Canadian freedoms via the Income Tax Act, there is this whiny little line off his group's website:

(NOTE: Due to CFAC's political actions to support family, religious freedom and democracy, Revenue Canada will not allow us to issue charitable tax receipts.)

Take note of the attempt to portray themselves as "persecuted". If Harper ever gets a majority, you can expect that McVety's groups, hardly beacons of freedom and democracy, will find a way to further amend the Income Tax Act to make themselves tax-exempt.

This isn't just dangerous. This is very dangerous. Bill C-10 should never have gotten out of committee. It is up to the opposition, the majority in Parliament and on parliamentary committees, to be aware that Harper is serving the Christian dominionist agenda. It's time they get off their asses and stop the creep towards a theocracy.

No more playing hooky from committee meetings, no more missing votes. Read every line of every piece of proposed legislation and do the required research. Do otherwise and we'll be in the same condition as the train-wreck that rests against our southern border.

Sex, drugs, violence and the things that censors get to see.

A couple of news reports on varying types of censorship have bubbled up from Fort Fumble on the Rideau. While they are unrelated, I'll comment on both. They'll remain unrelated, but perhaps it will show why one is necessary and the other is pure puritan politics at play.

First is this little bit describing a new criteria for Canadian-made films expecting to receive a tax credit for their production. (All emphasis mine)

The Conservative government has drafted guidelines that would allow it to pull financial aid for any film or television show that it deems offensive or not in the public's best interest – even if government agencies have invested in them.

The proposed changes to the Income Tax Act would allow the Heritage Minister to deny tax credits to projects deemed offensive, effectively killing the productions. Representatives from Heritage and the Department of Justice will determine which shows or films pass the test.

Game and talk shows, news, sports, reality television and pornography are already excluded from access to the tax credits. The proposed prohibition would cover a sweeping range of material, such as anything of an explicit sexual nature, that denigrates a group or is excessively violent without an educational value.

So, there are already a set of exclusions. This new bill is intended to expand that to meet some new standard, nothing of which is set out in any detail.

“Bill C-10, currently at third reading in the Senate, contains an amendment to the Income Tax Act which would allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to deny eligibility to tax credits of productions determined to be contrary to public policy,” Charles Drouin, spokesman for Canadian Heritage said in a statement. “... Upon royal assent of C-10, the Department of Canadian Heritage plans to update the eligibility requirements for the [Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit] program.”

He said the department “has recently standardized and updated the list of illegal and other ineligible content.”

There's really no need to take this any further. The "contrary to public policy" statement is all that's necessary. The type of government run by Harper is such that anything can be deemed to be contrary to public policy. With no clearly defined criteria, it doesn't matter what the content is. If the Harperites don't like it, it will be denied tax credits - after it's been produced.

It isn't really censorship. It's actually a back-door method of shutting down the tax advantage to Canadian film and television production. It's just that if the government "reviewers" decide something doesn't meet their standard, whatever that might be, a production which is "in the can" and probably heavily in debt won't make it out of the government screening booth because without the tax credit the production company will probably not be able to afford distribution. In short, you'll never see it.

We shouldn't have expected anything less from the Harper crowd. It satisfies two overwhelmingly powerful instincts of the Harper Party: to eliminate government support of every social and cultural thing they can; and, to get government as deep into your social, cultural and personal life as possible without precipitating an armed revolt.

There is a third element which is truly nefarious. The Harper government plans to use the Income Tax system as a weapon to stifle anything they don't like - after it's made. It's a weapon and it is censorship. Once this bill passes no producer of Canadian film or television will know if they have the advantage of the Income Tax Act. The Canadian Revenue Agency won't be able to determine, based on a set of strict guidelines either. So a producer will never know, until after the government views the finished product, if a Canadian production meets the Harper government's unpublished standards.

In short: If you don't toe our line, we have the power to cause you personal financial damage.

The second item which arose comes from National Defence Headquarters in a message to all Canadian Forces personnel.

The Defence Department is advising Canadian soldiers not to post personal photos and information on social networking websites like Facebook, citing security concerns.

The advisory was circulated in a memo obtained by CBC News. It warns soldiers not to appear in uniform in online photos and not to disclose their military connections.

That isn't really new. In fact, it is a reiteration of previous orders. While it may appear to most Canadians to fly in the face of individual rights and freedoms, the CF has the authority to limit what full-time serving members of the armed forces place in the public domain. It has always possessed that authority and it often varies in intensity depending on the types of operations the CF may be involved in.

"Al Qaeda operatives are monitoring Facebook and other social networking sites," the memo says.

"This may seem overdramatic ... [but] the information can be used to target members for further exploitation. It also opens the door for your families and friends to become potential targets as well."

Well, there is some over-dramatizing involved. It's not just al Qaeda. The truth though is that a load of various groups do keep an eye on things like Facebook and MySpace. In fact, a lot of those groups use social networking sites themselves.

In reality, the direction from NDHQ is nothing but common sense. Putting too much personal information in the public domain is a risk for most people. In the case of service personnel, particularly those who are already in a hostile environment, personal security needs to be carefully monitored, even if it appears to be overdone.

The Defence Department says it is also concerned with postings of photos and information from the battlefront in Afghanistan.

On Feb. 14, military official Brig.-Gen. Peter Atkinson warned against such battle scene postings.

"The insurgents could use this information to determine their success or their lack of it ... and determine better ways to attack us," he told reporters in Ottawa.

I just know there will be a cry that information is being censored here. It is.

There are two sides to a combat action. The other side knows what went on from their view. Giving them the view from your side is a very bad idea. But it goes further than that. Service personnel are subject to all forms of censorship, both in and out of theatre. They always have been. While the photos from the "boots on the ground" may provide some interesting and dramatic scenes, they impact operational security in a multitude of ways.

Censorship of information from an operational theatre has always been a fact of life for service personnel. Given my own experiences, what is being allowed now is far more liberal than at any other time in the past where troops have been committed to combat.

The fact remains that the leadership of the Canadian Forces has the authority to impose strict censorship on information, particularly that originating in an operational theatre, and they are still a long way from imposing it.

Canadian Forces policy has always been that information released to the public is done through official channels. The determination of operational security is made within the CF. Where that goes off the rails is when the government, (in Canada's case that means the Prime Minister's Office), sticks its political nose in. Then it becomes government information control.

In this case, the instructions issued by the CF to its personnel is reasonable and within its authority.

Hat tip Bob and Todd

Update: Take a good read of Beijing York's comment and then take a look at what director David Cronenberger has to say.

And another one direct from the Bush playbook

As Steve V says, this is just unbelievable.

Environment Canada has "muzzled" its scientists, ordering them to refer all media queries to Ottawa where communications officers will help them respond with "approved lines."

Whatever an "approved line" is.

Environment Canada scientists, many of them world leaders in their fields, have long been encouraged to discuss their work on everything from migratory birds to melting Arctic ice with the media and public. Several of them were co-authors of the United Nations report on climate change that won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

"It's insulting," says one senior staff member, who asked not to be named. She says researchers can no longer even discuss or confirm science facts without approval from the "highest level."

Until now, Environment Canada has been one of most open and accessible departments in the federal government, which the executive committee says is a problem that needs to be remedied.

Well, yes. Open and accessible government is on helluva problem, dontcha know. Why, if someone doesn't bring an end to it, it'll make everyone think the government of Canada is transparent and accountable.

The scientists need not worry. The fat little men in blue ties will be around directly... selling memberships in "the party".

The nazification of the civil service has begun.

Dear Halifax...

I'm calling in a favour for making that emergency port visit to Cape Breton in the middle of a fisheries patrol plagued with crappy North Atlantic winter weather. And for finding Ordinary Seaman (we'll call him Bloggins) not guilty of being "adrift" (absent without authority) because he had the good sense to tell me a story I had not heard before. After being accused of over-staying his time in the company of a young woman, he explained that he had merely fallen asleep in a local restaurant.

But I digress.

The next time you're outbound for Fort Fumble on the Rideau, take a few moments to check this out.

It's one of those "Why We Fight" kind of things.

Bury Digg.

Maybe Kevin Rose needs to lose more than his girlfriend over his Digg site.

It seems Digg has taken to banning some of our friends because of their lifestyle. Gay and lesbian sites are suddenly disappearing from Digg and the site owners are being informed that they are being banned because of "mature content".

Well, call me pedantic, but I just found this site on the front page of Digg's lifestyle section. Warning: Not Safe For Work!

That's one busy little sidebar, don't you think? Why, I'd go so far as to suggest that might be "mature content".

So, Digg can't claim this is some sort of "morality" issue. And they can't call Cap'n Dyke, Lesbian Pirate Queen & Rogue Blogger anything nearing offensive and really mean it.

Do yourself a favour. Give Digg the heave-ho and, as Chet says, bury it.

Update: Bastard.logic tosses away the scabbard and shows Digg yet another cutlass.

The muzzle tightens

This should disturb a few people. In fact, it should disturb everyone.

Important information and interview requests directed to the Canadian military must now be cleared by senior bureaucrats who are under the direction of the prime minister's office, say defence sources.

The Privy Council Office directive applies to all matters of ``national importance," but is primarily focused on shaping information related to the war in Afghanistan.

The order was issued within the last two weeks and caps a determined effort by the Conservatives to assert more civilian control over the military, which has been seen in government circles to have too much influence in the conduct of the war.

There is lots of blame to go around for this but much of it must rest with General Rick Hillier for being too vocal and having been seen to be far too public a figure. No Chief of Defence Staff has ever been so much in the media as Hillier.

Notwithstanding that, however, there is something terribly wrong with information being crimped directly from the PMO.

"They want to turn the noise down," said one defence source.

A second official added that the military side was in the ``information business" while the political side was "in the marketing business."

Requests for comment from the Prime Minister's Office and Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office were not answered Monday.

A call to interview senior public affairs officers at the Defence Department was denied, but officials did release a two-line email suggesting the military has long "co-ordinated (communications) with both the minister's office and the Privy Council Office."

That's all true but only in degrees. The Canadian Forces public information system is intended to provide continuous updates on activities of the Canadian Forces on a day to day basis. Generally there is no discussion of policy. That is the purview of the government. While there has always been coordination between the minister's office and the PCO, it has always been on an information basis. Censorship has only been imposed when a matter of national security was involved and it was normally the CF telling the PCO what constituted national security.

Regulations governing members of the Canadian Forces when they speak with the media were enacted in 1998.

"There has been no change in policy," said the note.

But clamping down on information and interview requests wouldn't require a formal change in policy, only a political order.

Actually regulations have always existed. They have been and are vague enough to allow the politicians to establish any level of information filtering they wish. In this case, the filter is actually starting to look like a dam.

A retired colonel and expert in access-to-information said the military, the group that has been most effective in rallying support for Afghanistan and explaining the mission to Canadians, has been gagged.

"People should absolutely be concerned because these are our sons and daughters serving in Afghanistan," said Michel Drapeau, a lawyer and defence commentator.

"It leaves one with the impression of some sort of political manipulation or lack of transparency, where transparency should be absolutely necessary."

To expect an explanation of the mission from the Harperites would be a stretch of enormous proportions. In fact, because the politicians are in the "marketing" game, actual information will be left behind.

It is unclear how far along the chain of command the order extends and how much freedom the country's outspoken chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, has been given. He has raised the ire of Conservatives for his blunt public statements, which have sometimes contradicted his political masters.

No, no, no. That's not the actual truth. As long as Hillier was saying things which made the Conservatives look like tough-talking macho-men in business suits, Harper was quite happy to let Hillier run-off at the mouth. It wasn't until Hillier gave an honest assessment of how long it would actually take to have the Afghan National Army prepared to take over operations that the Conservatives went all wobbly.

Last summer, the military stopped releasing documents under access to information regarding Taliban prisoners. At the same, it has subjected almost all requests to an extra review process – over and above existing checks – in the name of national security, even if they don't relate to Afghanistan.

Over the last few months, routine information and interview requests by various media have either been answered by short, often non-sequitor e-mail responses or by silence.

All of which coincides with the arrival of Peter MacKay as Minister of National Defence. And weepy Peter watched what happened to his predecessor when the better informed of two principles - the minister and the CDS - was the CDS.

There is more to this than just Afghanistan. Given the Conservative moping over the fact that despite the tons of money they've poured into the Canadian Forces for equipment, some of which was not and is not wanted, the politicians have not reaped the reward of political "sizzle", there is an expectation that the taps are about to be turned off.

There have already been reports that the Harperites have told the Canadian Forces that the mission to Afghanistan will have to be covered from the fixed DND budget. There will be no further funding made available despite the fact that Afghanistan is not the kind of operation that would typically be funded out of annual estimates.

What will happen is that normal operations such as sovereignty patrols and training will take a hit. All three services will suffer at the expense of an Afghanistan mission that grows in cost.

There will be dissension and the Conservatives will need to work hard to quell it or keep a lid on the information. What the Conservatives have not managed to get their political heads around however, is that the Canadian Forces is a fairly close-knit organization. Despite minor internal rivalries, the culture is unique and insular. The impression of being "hosed" by politicians spreads quickly.

While the prime minister's office may be able to clamp down on official information and the senior officer corps of the CF, they can't stop the internal rumour-mill from operating. And if the official information dries up you can expect to hear information coming from the corporals and leading seamen... via a very reliable grapevine.

British troops and dark veil of silence

Much will probably be made of this.

Armed forces given gagging order

Because it looks like something new.

The Ministry of Defence has introduced new guidelines to prevent military personnel talking publicly about their experiences as members of Britain's armed forces.

Soldiers, sailors and air force members will be prevented from blogging, taking part in surveys, speaking in public or posting on bulletin boards, according to The Guardian.

They will also be barred from playing multi-player computer games and sending text messages, photographs and audio or video material without permission if they relate to defence matters.

The guidelines declare "all such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence", the newspaper reported.

The new policy follows the row earlier this year sparked by two members of the Royal Navy who sold their stories to the media after being held captive in Iran.

Receiving money for interviews, conferences and books which draw on official defence experience has now been formally banned.

Ummm....

This doesn't appear to be new. In almost all armed forces, there is a limit to what members may express publicly. The banning of receiving money for interviews, books, etc., where a member is still in the service is something I completely agree with. If a person wants to get out and then market themselves and their story, that's fine, but as long as one is "accepting the Queen's shilling", so to speak, one's voice is limited - by regulations. It always has been. Some troops have permanent gag orders, undertakings of confidence, which do not permit them to utter anything at all about their work, past or present - ever. (Despite the writings of one Andy McNab).

The UK Ministry of Defence, however, did a pretty awful job of explaining it. Considering it came from their Director General of Media and Communications, that's not surprising.

One of the first questions any British service member would be asking: "Is the DGMC a fucking civvie?"

In that the answer is "Yes", (Simon MacDowall), the average uniformed lower decker or squadie is not likely to take to kindly to the order. And sure enough, they didn't.

All of this stemmed from the capture of 15 sailors by Iran and subsequent to their release, the sale of the story, by two of those members, to the news media. The Hall Report issued a scathing indictment of the mishandling of that affair by the UK Ministry of Defence and recommended that, in future, accepting payment for a story which originated with and related directly to a person's service be prohibited.

To be honest, when I had first heard that some of the released captives were being paid, while still wearing the uniform, for their story, I was appalled.

The rules as published here, are pretty much those which have always existed. The additions which seem to be getting everyones' nickers in a twist are in paragraph 15:

15. Examples of communicating in public in public are:

• publishing material (for example books, articles, papers for academic qualifications, or any other text, audio, still images, video or other content) or submitting material with the intention or likelihood of publication, in any medium (print or electronic) available outside the government;
• self-publishing or otherwise releasing material on the internet or similar sharing technologies, for example through a blog, podcast, or other shared text, audio or video, including via mobile devices;
• interviews with journalists using broadcast, print or electronic media;
• speaking at conferences, private engagements or other events where the public or media may be present;
• completing external organisations' questionnaires, taking part in external surveys or polls, or contributing to external studies or research projects;
• contributing to any online community or shared electronic information resource available outside government, for example a bulletin board, newsgroup, wiki, on-line social network, mutliplayer game or other information sharing application.

The emphasized sub-paras are new, and it is those which are causing the problem. Inasmuch as MacDowall is saying this is nothing out of the ordinary, he clearly doesn't understand sailors, soldiers, marines and airmen, and he has no grasp on the magnitude of censorship the new regulation imposes.

Service in the armed forces is not the same as working for the local company, no matter how large. Service personnel have always bitched, and will continue to bitch, about their lot in life, their leaders and the crappy gear the government expects them to use.

As one member of the Army Rumour Service Forum said, We legally cannot put a memorial up for fallen comrades in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Over at RumRation, the Royal Navy and Royal Marine unofficial forum, the same kind of discussion is going on.

The truth is, it is just an expansion of some very old rules, but the regulation is so badly written that nobody can decide whether they are actually allowed to post to the forums or whether they are now in breach of regulations.

Without clarification, which the MOD's response did little to provide, people in a conversation discussing the crappy food on a past patrol or the lousy weather on an Atlantic crossing are, in literal terms, violating regulations. Telling the world that your new body armour is useless can get you landed in a court martial.

So, yeah. This is a gag order... unless someone with a uniform and a brass hat tells the troops otherwise and clarifies what they are actually allowed to discuss.

Update: It is particularly noteworthy that British service personnel, unhappy with this policy, are expressing themselves in forums. That ought to get MacDowell twisting in the wind, but one of the best comments I've seen so far is this one:

Every one should write in with an application so that they can talk to their mother, as she is a member of the public talking to her is banned. After 4000 applications in a week they will get the message.

[...]

Next time an MP turns up and asks you a question, tell them you do not have written authority to answer there [sic] questions

I feel a breeze....

Any way you spell it, it's still censorship

One of our commenters brought the following to our attention:

Not sure if anyone else has reported on this: I am a federal civil servant and (while on a break!) noticed that the Galloping Beaver, Calgary Grit and BigCityLiberal are all now blocked from government desktops (at least in my Dept - AAFC). This wasn't the case 2 wks ago.

Interesting.

A quick survey around some of the other internet comment sites and forums suggests that other progressive sites and blogs are also blocked on some government computers. The coincidence of discovering that TGB, Calgary Grit, BigCityLiberal and Bread and Roses are blocked on computers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (and some other federal government locations) is just too much to let slide by without a few words.

First, there are a good number of companies who restrict the use of their office computers and have placed internet blocks up to prevent employees "surfing" when they should be engaging in productive enterprises on behalf of the employer.

How the Canadian government chooses to restrict internet access at workstations in the federal civil service is probably one of those mysterious things. The overall policy would be a Treasury Board directive and it probably prohibits employees from accessing things like porn sites. Beyond that, it is probably left to each department and ministry to determine what level of internet access will be allowed.

When I was in the service desktop computers were still new-fangled devices and information technology was, shall we say, rough. Most computers could not access the internet, such as it was, and that didn't matter to us. An added fact was that the Canadian Forces was so far behind the computer power curve that some of the combat computers filled entire rooms and used perforated paper tape for data input. The 5 1/4 inch floppy was around, but they were considered good only for saving word processing data.

The decision to block certain blogs in certain government departments had to come from somewhere. There have been a few suggestions and it could be anything from an edict issued by as high up as a minister to some officious IT punk taking matters into his/her own hands.

We don't know. But we do care.

Some suggested that it might be a keyword thing, what with the occasional profane outburst triggering a response from some net nanny application which immediately declares sites like this PG17 - Reader discretion is advised. May contain language considered offensive to people not educated in a public school system. Authors probably have sex during the day with the lights on.

Maybe, but I don't think so. No, this has the trademarks of a human hand in specific departments. You see, on any given day, this blog gets loads of visits from various locations which fall into the category of gc.ca. So, it's not government-wide.

I had no idea we were considered so dangerous in the eyes of some federal departments. So dangerous that censorship had to be imposed. (I know. You thought I wasn't going to use the "C" word.)

Does it have something to do with not putting pictures of kittens up? If we did a Wednesday morning cat-blogging thing, would that get us off the censor list? Is it the Mrs. Mills paste-ups? She can be pretty raunchy. Sorry, she stays. And your staff doesn't get to read her.

Are you blocking right-wing sites too? Or are you, the one who imposed the block, giving the Blogging Tories some grease they haven't earned? Too much of them and your whole staff will start breathing through their mouths and moving their lips when they think.

No matter. We will wear it as a badge of honour. We are banned by select departments of Canada's New Government. In fact, that's actually a great idea! A badge for the sidebar - with those words on it. One to go with the other awards. I wonder if there's anyone out there (Wingnuterer, can you hear me?) who can put together a classy CENSORED award? Something that all of us "blocked" blogs can wear. Something that demonstrates just how damned scary we've become to elements of the Harper government.

So, to whoever blocked us, thank you. You've probably boosted our traffic.

And to those civil servants who know of workstations where this blog is blocked, send them this link and save it. If it works, we'll send out regular changes.

Graphic Update: Oh... what our buddy over at April Reign has done. Badges! Just for us vituperative, irritating blogs. I like... a lot. Thanks Debra!

Watch the sidebar.







Further Graphic Updates: April Reign has answered yet another call by those who feel slighted by the web filters at some Canadian government departments. We hear you, Red Jenny! More great badges. Thanks, once again Debra.

The thin edge of a very dangerous wedge

Via Stageleft, the New Zealand parliament has voted in a bill which is the slippery slope into government control of that country's news media:

New Zealand politicians, upset at being seen as lazy and offensive, have banned journalistic satire as well as coverage that ridicules or denigrates them, according to new rules passed on Thursday. Members of New Zealand's parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of the new rules. Just six members of the 121-seat parliament were opposed. The new provision makes it a contempt of parliament if television footage is used for "satire, ridicule or denigration." Photographers are no longer able to take still shots during sessions but television cameras can. Leader of the House Michael Cullen suggested it was too easy for photographers to take shots that were out of context.

Like perhaps, sleeping or flipping a finger at an opponent.

Several newspapers and television stations reacted angrily to the upcoming ban, which was revealed on Monday. They showed images from the next day's parliamentary debate of politicians asleep, gesturing offensively, reading fashion magazines and using their cellphones. Media said they would no longer be able to show these images under the new rules, and would face jail if found guilty of contempt. Cameras have been banned for periods of several days to a week on occasions that parliament finds those media organisations to have brought the House into disrepute. Last year, New Zealand television station TV3 was banned for three days after it showed a picture of a politician repeatedly making an obscene gesture.

Sounds all too familiar, doesn't it?

New Zealand has had its problems in the past. In the late 1980s it was literally bankrupt. Drastic measures had to be taken just to be able to make monthly interest payments on their national debt. In 1992, New Zealand's net debt stood at almost 50% of that country's gross domestic product.

There was unhappiness everywhere.

The NZ dollar has been on the same roller coaster-ride as many world currencies but at one point it fell to $0.39 US. Anyone buying New Zealand beef would have noticed a good quality product for about 1/2 the price of the same product from North American producers. It also meant New Zealanders took a national pay cut.

New Zealand used to have a bicameral parliament. Similar to many Commonwealth governments using the Westminster system New Zealand's upper house of parliament was known as the Legislative Council. Members of the Legislative Council were initially appointed for life modeled on the British House of Lords. Due to stacking by successive prime ministers however, that was changed in 1891 and MLCs served for seven years. What is little known among many Commonwealth countries is that since 1914 New Zealand had legislation in place to elect, by proportional representation, the Legislative Council for a fixed period of six years. And they never followed through. Instead, in 1951, the NZ government abolished the upper house. To cause the Legislative Council to vote FOR the idea of upper house abolition, then prime minister Sidney Holland appointed twenty members to the Legislative Council to vote for their own abolition. They were known as the "suicide squad".

The abolition of the upper house of the New Zealand parliament was intended to be an interim measure until new legislation to create a second chamber of parliament could be passed. Nothing has happened and New Zealand, for better or for worse, remains unicameral.

Anyway, back to the legislation in question.

The New Zealand parliament has decided that, in order to ameliorate a situation which can clearly be held out as censorship, it would provide a continuous, unedited, streamed broadcast of parliament, available on the internet, whenever the House is sitting.

That's fair enough, but the rules associated with that streaming broadcast are somewhat draconian. You can watch parliament, and you can go to the pub and discuss what you saw, but don't take a portion of that taxpayer-funded broadcast and make anything but a favourable public comment. It's now against the law.

There is some comfort to be taken from this event, however. It's nice to know that New Zealand's politicians aren't terribly different from ours: Self-serving, feckless, egotistical, thin-skinned wanks.

"Shut up and stop trying to censor me"

Shut up and stop trying to censor me
Censorship and free speech seems to be a slippery concept for some people. Bill O'Rielly's schtick is yelling at guests he disagrees with to shut up and having their microphones cut off, but when Media Matters reruns his racist hateful facist crapola and criticizes him for it, he accuses them of trying to censor him, calls them the worst people in the world, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I'm all for letting anyone say anything they want, but if the nazis want to march, they better be ready to be met by a massive countermarch. If Wingnuts want to talk trash on the radio they better be ready to be universally mocked.

I also believe that media outlets using the public airwaves have a responsibililty to present opposing views and give equal time in a fair way.

CC over at Canadian Cynic has been going around and around with a two of a group of total jackasses his policy of removing people from his blogroll if they also blogroll the aforementioned jackasses. Which I think is reasonable -- If someone on my blogroll started blogrolling Stormfront or Free Republic (no way in hell am I linking to either one here, if you need to look at them, go find'em yourself) I'd drop them like a bad habit.

You have the right to post whatever you want on your blog, but I have the right to criticize you for it on my blog and even to come and criticize you for it on your blog comments. But once I've made my point in the comments, if I continue to be a boring pain in the ass, it is no longer valid criticism -- its trolling and i deserve whatever I get, whether it is countertrolls on my blog, being banned from your comments, being told to shut up and get lost etc etc.

I wouldn't deny racist fuckwits like Right Girl and Kathie Shaidle the right to say whatever hateful idiotic dumbass thing they want on their blogs, but they need to expect that they will be made turned into social pariahs, universally mocked and despised for it. Free speech has consequences, you are responsible for what you say, so if you say something stupid, expect an earful for it.

That is not censorship. Censorship is when the government comes along and makes you shut down your blog, or bans you from having a computer/printing press/radio station, or makes it illegal to mention certain things or talk to certain people. Media organizations self-censor every day. That's why you won't see the headline "President fucks up again" in the New York Times.

In Japan, as in Canada, there is no official government censorship. The government often doesn't release embarrassing information, even when requested, but more influential on media self-censorship is the chilling effect of the violent right wing extremists. Their intimidation, combined with a lack of testicular fortitude on the part of the media and a do-nothing attitude on the part of a sometimes sympathetic police force mean you will never see a Japanese newspaper write negative things about the imperial family, conservative politicians or the right-wing extremists. People have gotten killed for it and the mainstream media here is unwilling to take the chance. So there is no examination of the "Nanjing Massacre Incident" or the sexual enslavement of tens of thousands of women by the Japanese Military the possibly forcible recruitment of some women to serve as comfort women, most of whom volunteered

In North America the chill comes from fear of losing business. I have some personal experience with this: I was once fired from a small newspaper for publishing stories about a local politician and businessman who was also a major advertiser. (I sued the publisher, we settled and no, I won't elaborate.) This was not censorship, this was just cowardice on the part of the publisher.

Big companies that own media outlets don't like to see stories critical of them or their favorite politicians. Izzy Asper centralized editorial control of their papers at one point. Conrad Black simply cut half the editorial staff at his papers (thus scaring the hell out of the other half and making them afraid to offend the boss) as a 'money-saving measure' .It doesn't have to be heavy handed. Often it is simply a publisher or editor worrying about pissing the owner.

At one place I worked, the owner was well-known to be a tory, the local MP was a tory and a buffoon, but we shied away from reporting on his buffoonery because we knew it would lead us to grief with our boss, not for any specific act, but we knew how unpleasant she could make things for us.

Big media outlets know that if they self-censor too much, they cease to be interesting. If they slant the news too much, they lose credibility. Fox News has had a good run, but unless they start pandering to the left when the political pendulum swings the other way, or actually try to become a neutral news organization, they will be out of business. Democrats refusing to be interviewed and businesses refusing to advertise will hasten that process. Wingnuttery still abounds there, but as the conservative movement totters toward smoking ruin, their days are number. You can already see some of their pundits trying to distance themselves from Bush.

Bloggers refusing to link to, blogroll or read idiots will hasten the departure of the idiots from blogtopia or at least marginalize them and grind away the veneer of respectability some of them have acquired. Eventually that means if they want to have a conservative blogger on TV it won't be Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix (nicknamed by Pretty Shaved Ape at Canadian Cynic) or the Bush worshipping dingbats from Powerline.

So let us rejoice in the chaotic nature of the blogosphere and speak our minds while remembering that in doing so we have a responsibility not to make stuff up, spread lies or generally behave like assholes. And we have a duty to fight irresponsible hate-mongering stupidity wherever it is on the political spectrum.

When folk music and political protest clash

Via Uncorrected Proofs, this protest song was deemed to be "too political" for an Australian Folk Festival.



Really... that was too political?

It's too bad the Ed Sullivan Show is gone. I mean, after all, that was the all time favourite variety program of the conservative right. Up until this happened...



Now that's political.