Today we are going to take one piece of the Alberta NDP and discuss it. Actually, we aren’t unless you decide to comment below. Until someone comments below, this will be more of an opinion piece than a discussion for sure although I am ready and willing to open it up.
The fact that Alberta’s premier acts like she has a job for life and can do whatever she wants is more than insane. She was elected into power and that election is feeling more and more like 1930’s Germany every day. Unlike Germany, Rachel and her NDP will be gone in 3 years or less if someone can find someway to get rid of her earlier.
How has she crossed the line now?
We aren’t going to discuss her crushing the economy to bury Alberta’s energy industry (largest in Canada by over 50%).
We are not going to discuss the way she pushes things through the legislature without discussing the idea with people that it affects or professionals that know infinitely more about the topic than she does.
We are not going to discuss her blatant disregard for unemployment, budgets, deficits, security, due process or any other topics of interest to the people by pushing back the spring sitting of the legislature when she should be calling for an emergency session.
Today we are going to talk about how she thinks that she is above the law. Rachel Notley (I went out of my way to spell her real name correctly because I want to make a point about how absolutely crazy this move is on her part) and her NDP party have done the unthinkable and countermanded centuries of freedoms that the press have had in civilized Western societies.
She actually believes that she is Alberta’s own little dictator and the laws granted to us as Canadians don’t matter.
I know that you have heard about how the NDP party run by Rachel has banned all journalists working for The Rebel from all government events. She has banned all of the reporters, columnists and pundits that The Rebel pays for journalistic services because she doesn’t like them. That is basically what it comes down to and that is illegal. There is no grey area. It was illegal for Nixon to think he was above the law and it is illegal for Rachel Nutley.
I can’t believe that she is not being charged or at least investigated by the police for this but here at the facts…
- The NDP have banned The Rebel from 3 events
- They have stated that no member of The Rebel organization will be allowed to report on anything from the public government facilities that they control
- They seem to think that this is okay because they do not feel that the owner of The Rebel is a “reporter”.
If you agree with these three facts, then you need to speak up. Let your MLA know how wrong you feel this is that the government is trying to stop journalists from reporting on alternative political opinions.
If you disagree with one of these facts, educate yourself and then re-read the previous paragraph. There is simply no grey area here.
1 The NDP banned journalists
This is not some conspiracy theory, it is a fact. You can check out the whole thing on their website or just watch the video of them being kicked out.
2 The NDP have banned all members of The Rebel
The NDP response to The Rebel came from Alberta Justice with only one sentence (Letter_to_Fred_Kozak__Q.C._re_Rebel_Media__Feb_12__2016)…
Our client’s position remains that your client and those who identify as being connected to your client are not journalists and are not entitled to access media lock-ups or other such events.
~ Jason Fung (Alberta Justice)
Another indisputable fact.
3 The NDP justify this with circular illogic
I know that “circular illogic” isn’t a word and is not actually grammatically even readable, but it gets my point across that the NDP are using an illogical argument to create a statement fraught with circular logic.
Our rationale on this is very simple and it comes down to one thing: It’s the fact that Ezra Levant himself has testified under oath that he is not a reporter and so we don’t consider him a reporter
~ Cheryl Oates (Rachel Nutley’s director of communications)
So let us look at the time that Ezra Levant, a founder of The Rebel, claimed under oath, that he was not a reporter…
I’m a commentator, I’m a pundit, I don’t think in my entire life I’ve ever called myself a reporter.
Of course I’m a journalist. I have been for more than 20 years, opinion journalists are journalists, and are naturally allowed to cover the government. Is Oates claiming otherwise?
~ Ezra Levant
I am assuming that people reading my blog have enough mental capacity to understand the difference between a journalist and a reporter. If not, you are smart enough to click on a link to figure it out rather than allow a liberal social justice warrior to just tell you what to think.
I am going to steal this from Dave Hnatiuk’s FaceBook post because it is faster than typing it myself…
Commentator: a person who delivers a live commentary on an event or performance. Synonyms: narrator, announcer, presenter, anchor, anchorman, anchorwoman; AKA: A Journalist
Pundit: an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public.
“a globe-trotting financial pundit” Synonyms: expert, authority, specialist, doyen(ne), master, guru, sage, savant, maven; AKA: A Journalist
Reporter: a person who reports, especially one employed to report news or conduct interviews for newspapers or broadcasts. Synonyms: journalist, correspondent, newspaperman, newspaperwoman, newsman, newswoman, columnist, pressman; AKA: A Journalist
Journalist: A journalist is a person who collects, writes, or distributes news or other current information. A journalist’s work is called journalism. AKA: A Reporter, A Pundit, A Comentator.
~ Dave Hnatiuk (FaceBook) <does this make Dave a Pundit now?>
Is back-pedaling enough?
So the government had immediately realized that maybe this push was a little much as a myriad of journalists from across the country have come out in support of Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media. Many of those stepping up are lesser fans of Ezra than even Nutley is as you can see by the socialist comments from Alberta’s Liberal party.
Only a liberal could put the word “probably” into that tweet but what else would you expect?
You could virtually find limitless chastisings online of Nutley’s decision from almost every municipal newspaper you can think of as well as the Globe and Mail, Warren Kinsella, the National Post and even Paul Wells from Maclean’s.
I immediately signed up with The Rebel to back their lawsuit against Rachel Nutley and her NDP, and I asked Ezra to not ask me to help fund his legal action. On one had I applaud him for not going after money but on the other, if a government that is brazenly throwing money at every socialist in the country to come offer consulting to teach them how to run Alberta, they might as well pay you for legal fees plus a little for obscenely breaking a law.
But my biggest problem is not that they did this, but what the NDP did to respond.
In light of the controversy around this issue, we’ve asked Heather Boyd … to consult with media and give us recommendations on a media policy for the Alberta government.
~Cheryl Oates (Rachel Nutley’s director of communications)
Heather Boyd, former Western Canada bureau chief for Canadian Press, has reported back and this is the NDP stance now…
We’ve heard a lot of feedback from Albertans and media over the course of the last two days and it’s clear we made a mistake. The government has appointed former Western Canadian Bureau Chief for Canadian Press, Heather Boyd to consult and give us recommendations on what the government’s media policies should be. In the meantime, no one will be excluded from government media events.
Let us be clear here
Let’s be clear here that the NDP did not make a mistake, they broke the law. Everyone seems to know it except the NDP. They still don’t understand because they have issued this policy as a temporary un-banning of media rather than outright apologizing and moving on.
For some bizarre reason, Rachel thinks it is a good idea to continue giving Ezra something to talk about on their website.
My big issue with this insanity
My biggest problem with this is that Rachel Nutley decided to break the law, pushed a guy with a nickname Ezra ‘LeRANT’ into a corner, came out beaten up and is now charging the Alberta taxpayers for it. That’s right, you and I, more so the ones of us that can stay employed in this economy, are paying some obscene consulting fees to Heather Boyd for what appears to be a search to bend the law in Rachel’s favor without actually breaking anything.
Is there anyone else out there wondering how we can exist without a recall option in our political system? What if the premier breaks the law, I am not talking about lying and cheating and stealing, because we expect that from our politicians, but when they blatantly defy our constitution and ban press from reporting on events, can’t we just have her charged in a criminal proceeding and use that as a cause for a new election?
I will even start a kick starter to pay for the election because the burden should not be on the shoulders of all Albert citizens just because we made a mistake last year…
Shayne (the journalist)
Pingback: Calgary-Greenway byelection: Do Albertans plead insanity or are they? | Plan B Mentality·
So to add to my previous comment, I ask you all this…
Is this bad practice? Or do you perceive this as bad practice because the NDP was the culprit this particular time?
This was bad practice, not because of the party, but it was unprecedented in Canadian politics. Your prior examples are not representative of what happened last week.
I would strongly disagree. Vice news is full of journalists. It is a news source. Levant stated under oath that he is NOT a journalist. As the patriarch of the establishment I would say he represents them. Ezra Levant has been charged with libel, has reported false information and fabricated stories on a number of occasions. I would say that they have every right to deny access unless it were a public event. Unless every blogger on the internet has an absolute right to attend without denial. Now that doesn’t mean I agree with it. Though they do have a right to do so.
Sure, but that was so 2014 😉
The comment about allowing everyone in is quite frankly unrealistic. Unrealistic because it hasn’t and will never happen.
As for Ezra, call him whatever you like, state whatever evils he has done, but the Canadian press is not innocent either of skewing details (as an example, why is a AR-15 rifle in civilian hands an “assault rifle” yet the same rifle in RCMP hands is a “carbine”) or fabrication. As for libel, all that is, is the simple difference between saying someone is a liar and saying that you think someone is a liar. As well being charged is not being convicted. Now, if you want to say tabloidish, I cannot argue that.
Scott, for the record, Ezra Levant stated under oath that he was not a “reporter” and in the same response said that he was a pundit and journalist for 20 years…
Today we’re not going to mention the fact that people will never take a post seriously if it starts with the word Nutley. Today we are not going to discuss that prefixing a sentence like this means I just talked about it.
If you were to actually be reporting about censorship you would have mentioned the tactics of censorship from ALL governing parties. How about Stephen Harper only letting Vice news attend his events if they were to pay THOUSANDS of dollars towards his campaign. Or the muzzling of scientists that happened. Muzzling and censorship is terrible in any form. However, so is blatantly biased reporting. That is just as bad as censorship. In fact,they are one and the same.
Ok, please, descibe exactly at which event (dates, source reference) were only Vice news allowed and all other media outlets were barred from attendence?
Then please confirm exactly how scientists were muzzled. No, i will not take an answer of “everyone knows that” or “well duh?” as an explanation.
So if the topic at hand is about the matter of denying reporters then it needs to be stated as the topic at hand. If it is just to attack the NDP then call it what it is. The NDP isn’t my party but it doesn’t help anyone when the points that are brought up have been going on with other parties for a number of years. If the issue is about censorship, it doesn’t just apply to a single political party.
Ok, the first one, Vice not being allowed in. The article stated is that only cameras/photographers were allowed. A reporter was geared towards asking questions at the photo op and was barred because he wanted to ask questions, not take photos. Not the same as saying everyone can come in, just not you, as was done with the Rebel.
As to the second vice article, i have to agree. Not on the paying for access on the tour bus per se, but if there is room for a question, then it should’ve been given out to the reporter. But, IMO, the reporter acted like a dick as well.
As for the globe and mail article, i couldn’t even finish it. High drama indeed.
The policy the Harper Gov’t enacted is pretty much common place in the private sector. Of course one can argue that in the public sector there should not be such a policy. Well, i have to say that the Harper Gov’t did right on this one. A person can make mountains out of molehills by asking the right person the right question to make a small issue or no issue into a big one. As in the other article you gave from the CBC, the process was abused by those in power, i can see that and it was wrong. But, there are cases listed on the CBC article that are simply blown up. Case in point, a scientist could not discuss a paper without the person who is an expert in the use of the detection equipment being present. That is not muzzling, that is making damn sure that the SME on the detection equipment is there to explain the readings and how they are obtained, with probable notes on what the calibration errors may be.
So was it muzzling the scientists, no, just prudent policy that is common place in most industries. Was the process abused by those in power, yes, again, commonplace like in most other industries.
The perception of scientists being muzzled, is the same perception held by the Liberals that 39.5% of the vote constitutes a major victory representing Canadians, whereas, 39.6% of the vote for the Conservatives in 2011 was injustice.
Yeah, he acted like a dick. Although Ezra Levant has been known to behave in a much more disrespectful manner. So where is the line drawn? What are the exact rules? It’s a matter of free speech and freedom of information is it not? What about the scientists? If the issues outlined in this article are to be taken, then there should be no exceptions to the rule based on particular party. And the mention of breaking the law. What law did they break that wasn’t broken with the Conservative party in the posts I added? I’m not trying to be condescending, I am genuinely curious. There should be no excuse or exception for NDP or the Conservative party to block and censor media. It’s wrong any way you put it.
Scott… your liberal stripes are starting to show…
I have talked to some of these scientists and I actually don’t disagree with Harper with a lot of his positions. He refused to allow bad science to dictate the government and he was one of the two national leaders in the world who stood up to the UN… and now they are both gone. You liberals just don’t learn.
As for Vice being banned… so was everyone and that is the PM’s discretion. I am unsure of how you are comparing these two incidents.
Even though I totally agree with everything you have written, it still doesn’t make any difference. I think that I (and possibly many others) have succumbed to the inescapable truth that we will have to endure 3 full years of this catastrophic provincial mismanagement. It is plain that the NDP will bulldozer their policies through no matter what the majority of Albertans say. Perhaps in the latter part of their reign they may well be ‘bunkered in’, but I’m sure they will be meddling to the very bitter end.
I hope we all remember this when they actually do good in their fourth year trying to convince us that they are finally settled into their new role… I can’t believe that people could be so stupid as to re-elect that woman or the NDP but they voted for Trudoh so I don’t put anything past the uneducated masses that vote.
Interesting commentary. Of the course the Constitution was trampled, but which law exactly was broken? I ask this because counldn’t someone press charges against them?
I sure hope so. I am not a lawyer but if I tried to ban someone from my business based on a constitutional right, would I not get charged for something?
I am sure. But here is the rub; in your post you stated that the law was broken. If one doesn’t know what law was broken, is it right of that person to say a law was broken? Otherwise isn’t that hyperbole?
Anyways, still great blogging. I guess i am being nitpicky because of the line of work i do. Basically in Inspection, if one states that something is non code, or does not conform to jurisdiction standards, you had better know chapter and verse what code or jurisdictional requirement was broken.
Michael, I cannot disagree with you. I may have wrongly assumed that the Canadian Constitution of 1982 was actually a law that citizens needed to follow when it might not actually be considered as such. It is clear that the Constitution Act of 1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms cover the freedom of the press under what they call “Fundamental Freedoms” and as such, I would think someone could be taken to court over a violation… maybe not a premier or Wynne would be making license plates somewhere.
Firstly, every person who voted for the NDP has knowingly or not supported Communism…congratulations.
Yes, Notley has broken the law. Even worse. The law that is there to protect our fundamental rights to Freedom of the Speech and Press Freedom has been manipulated by her to remove them at whim.
She failed, but she will try again. If not her, someone else like her (and theres lots of them, mostly in university right now)
Being that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Bill of Rights still recognize “the supremacy of God”, I would say that the right to Freedom of Speech and the Press are not only rights, but God-given rights, as they pertain to individuality and freedom of conscience.
Thus, they cannot be taken away by any government, since the government didnt technically give them to us in the first place.
(FYI: I am talking about the Judeo-Christian “God”, that is, the one that our great founding fathers knew and which made Canada great.)
Furthermore, Senator Keith Davey took a supporting view of this, writing in the Toronto Globe and Mail:
“Too many publishers harbor the absurd notion that freedom of the press is something they own…of course the exact opposite is the case. Press freedom is the right of the people.”
Indeed it is. And as that “right” wasnt given to us by the government, so it cant be taken away by it either. The governments job is to protect our rights, not to censor the truth, even if someone has an obscure version of it.
Nevertheless, there are reasonable stipulations on Freedom of Speech, which most people would agree with:
“Limits on speech were incorporated in the criminal code in relation to treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms.”
— Prof. Dominique Clément, University of Alberta
(None of which were the Rebel Media accused of..btw)
And one more stipulation sNotley would probably like to add to that list is “spreading truthful news”, cuz since she is a truthophobe, she hates when people like the Rebel Media expose her devilish hypocrisy.
Nathan, why are you congratulating me? I assume you are insinuating that because i wish to build a strong arguement against the NDP instead of engaging in hyperbole you take me to be a commie? Dude, i voted otherwise so chill.
Again Nathan, which manmade law was broken? Just saying that a law was broken doesn’t mean much. I do not want to be like the anti gunners who go around all day and tell everyone that guns kill people, because we all know that is a bunch of crock. It is hard facts that back the arguement. Saying that our own gov’t broke section 8 part xyz of the criminal code carries a helluva lot more weight than our gov’t broke the law but cannot picknout which one. Now saying the NDP broke the Constitution, as flawed as it is (property rights as a start), is, what i feel to be, truth. Here is a blurb from wikipedia (don’t hate me for using wikipedia)
” Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.”
In that passage, it would seem to mean that although there is Constitutional law, it is based on deciding which law was made that did not conform to the constitution.
The only rights you have are the ones you fight for. Do i believe in God (yes Capital G) given rights, yup i do. But it is up to each and every one of us to fight for them. There are alot of people on the other side of the fence that would gladly deny us those rights. That is why the Rebel Media is doing the right thing and taking the Gov’t to court.
Totally agree, it is not the Gov’t which grants rights or priveliges for that matter. But it is a social contract where we give up some of our freedom ( bleck, just about vomited) for a working society. Unfortunately, the social contract is failing as there are too many hands out looking for free crap to get through the day. We have become far too reliant on gov’t for my taste. But that is a conversation for another time.
I didnt mention you specifically about voting NDP and supporting Communism, I said “every person who..”, so if you didnt, then good; and congrats. I mean it that time.
About the law “being broken”, as I said, it goes deeper than that.
Our “right” (God-given or man-made, take your pick) to Freedom of Speech and the Press is not a law in itself, but it is to be protected by laws which are to be upheld by the government that wields them.
Our “rights” are protected by “laws”. So, the law was broken, or worse, manipulated, and used against our “rights” which are not to be violated – especially by the laws we pay the politicians to enforce to keep our “rights” intact and upheld.
I agree, guns arent the cause of deaths anymore than fast food is the cause of obesity. The issue is a major lack of self-control in our present day and age. And those same guns that idiots want to ban from citizens are the ones that can also protect us if necessary. Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have them. Its that simple.
Yes, there are those who want to deny us those rights, but at the same time they are inventing new “rights” in order to demand something for free, even if it costs someone else. And many people are actually brainwashed enough to be okay with that.
So how do we fight for honest rights, whilst fighting against the phony rights, especially with the NDP pushing all the left-wing socialist propaganda? V for Vendetta?