Posted by
Judyth Mermelstein on
Mar 06, 2007; 9:03pm
URL: http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/FYI-CAJ-Code-of-Silence-call-for-nominations-tp930p935.html
"Tracey P. Lauriault" <
[hidden email]> asked:
>Should we send one about stat can pricing?
I'll defer to the opinions of others but must point out that the CAJ is not especially interested in the pricing aspect: what concerns them is the situation where a government department refuses to divulge information the public has a right or need to know.
StatsCan is actually pretty forthcoming compared to such ministries as Foreign Affairs, Justice, Health Canada and Environment Canada. They may charge (through the nose) for some information we believe should be open to all at no charge but I've yet to hear anyone accuse the statisticians of deliberately concealing or "redacting" documents to hide what's really happening. Given what's gone on with the "security certificate" cases and the enquiry into the Air India bombing, I suspect several nominees will be parties concerned in those cover-ups: e.g., Stockwell Day as Public Security Minister, Vic Toews for his former role at Justice...
Personally, I'd nominate Stephen Harper for multiple causes and especially for prohibiting all Conservative cabinet ministers from telling the public anything without express prior consent from the PMO. (The PMO under the Liberals wasn't much less highhanded but it at least pretended to respect our elected representatives, whereas we now have a government that announces it will simply ignore acts passed by Parliament and do as its inner circle pleases.)
It wouldn't be fair to nominate Rona Ambrose for purging the Environment Canada Web site of useful public information (e.g. on the Kyoto Accord, means of reducing energy consumption, etc.): she was "only following orders" from her superiors. (cf. Editorial: "Don't blame Rona," by Ish Theilheimer. Policy decisions were made by Stephen Harper, "new" environment minister, and cronies.
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=34 )
I gather bits of the material developed under the Liberals will be published again once it's been rewritten to Conservative ideological specifications.
Since the Code of Silence Award is for the department which best blocked the public's right to know over the past year, we might want to reflect on what each of us knows about non-compliance with freedom of information requests, unpublicized threats to public health and safety, etc. rather than mere attempts to switch government from a "public good" model to a commercially profitable one. I passed along the call for nominations in the hope that somebody here has access to more inside information than I do.
Cynically yours,
Judyth
...
>>>
>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>>> CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS
>>>
>>> Attention News Editors:
>>> Canadian Association of Journalists Code of
>>> Silence Award ? Call for Nominations
>>>
>>> OTTAWA (March 1, 2007)-- It?s an award no one
>>> wants to win, but each year there is an endless list of worthy candidates.
>>> It?s time to submit your nominations for the
>>> Canadian Association of Journalists? seventh
>>> annual Code of Silence Award, which recognizes
>>> the most secretive government department in Canada.
>>> ?We look forward to the day when this award is no
>>> longer necessary,? said CAJ President Paul
>>> Schneidereit. ?But sadly, there is still a need
>>> to single out those who have shown great
>>> perseverance and given award-worthy, persistent
>>> performances in denying the public?s fundamental
>>> right to know. ?Politicians and bureaucrats
>>> continue to perfect the art of hiding
>>> information, stalling the media and ultimately
>>> denying the public valuable information. This
>>> award recognizes those who have exhibited
>>> exceptional skill at these undemocratic practises during the past year.?
##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC <
[hidden email]>
Canada H4G 1J4 <
[hidden email]>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."