You forgot one crucial element to lawful recording of conversations Colpy, consent. You must have the consent of those you are recording. Being invited to a closed door meeting is not a priori consent to record.
NDP wants names of Tories involved in taping of private caucus meeting
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
You forgot one crucial element to lawful recording of conversations Colpy, consent. You must have the consent of those you are recording. Being invited to a closed door meeting is not a priori consent to record.
This is interesting, because the devil is in the details. If the invitation that Mr Duncan received did not state that it was for NDP caucus members only, and that the information was confidential, then an argument could be made that he responded to an invitation that he received, and that he was entitled to record it and distribute it.
If the invitation did explicitly state that it was for NDP members only, and it was confidential etc etc, then it could be very sticky.
I'd love to see the actual invitation to the conference call that he received.
If the invitation did explicitly state that it was for NDP members only, and it was confidential etc etc, then it could be very sticky.
I'd love to see the actual invitation to the conference call that he received.
No, you must have the consent of ONE PARTY to the call, ie, yourself. You do not have to have consent of all parties.
Hey you know something JLM, if you don't find the topic interesting and worthwhile, then how about you take your ass and drag it somewhere else in the forums to something you're actually interested in, piss off and leave us to discuss the topic amongst ourselves who find it interesting enough?
Friggin Troll.
That's for personal use. That's not true for third-party disclosure, which is what the NDP are complaining about.
Last warning, either contribute to the topic at hand, leave for another topic or face adminitrative action.
You were called a troll because you are acting like a troll. If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this thread and wish to continue with this banter that has nothing to do with the topic, then expect appropriate actions to be taken.
I don't have to kiss your ass to tell you how it is.
Yeah, they are not the brightest candles on the cake, that's for sure. WE had about 9 years of them here in B.C. in the '90s, which should do us until the 2090s. :roll:
It still depends on exactly how the Email was addressed. If it was addressed to John Duncan MP with his Email address and when they did their roll call or what ever they do to identify themselves and he clearly said JOHN DUNCAN then it was all perfectly legal and would show how incompetent the NDP are. I agree that anything else would be at least sleazy and probably illegal. This is where the question arises in how the Email was addressed and how he responded. To the best of my knowledge neither of these two critical pieces of information have been made public. If anyone knows these two things let the rest of us know.
Further to your credit card analogy: If you gave me your credit card to purchase something for you and I bought a bunch of stuff for myself with it and did not pay you back would not be illegal. Sleazy yes but not illegal. You might win a judgement in small claims court but it would not be fraud because you gave me the card.
It's been several years now since I was in a corporate atmosphere where I had
to participate in conference calls. At the time, we'd receive an Email with a
password in it like "E512J56" or something random like that, dial in the phone#
at the appointed time, rattle of the password to an operator who patch you in,
and then we'd shoot the breeze for a couple minutes until whomever was hosting
the call came on and would ask, "Is everybody on?"
From the B.S.'n before the call, we'd usually know who wasn't on the call. Every
so often we might do a roll-call....but not necessarily. Occasionally someone would
get patched in late that we hadn't even missed. It happened. Who knows what procedure
was used on the conferance call between the NDP & the Bloc & whomever else
was on that call....intentionally or unintentionally invited....or not invited. Who knows?
For all we know at this point in time, this "John Duncan" may never have been asked to
identify himself on this call. It would be interesting to hear an ENTIRE copy of this call
start to finish (if it exists) to examine how this guy made it through the entire call without
being noticed.
to participate in conference calls. At the time, we'd receive an Email with a
password in it like "E512J56" or something random like that, dial in the phone#
at the appointed time, rattle of the password to an operator who patch you in,
and then we'd shoot the breeze for a couple minutes until whomever was hosting
the call came on and would ask, "Is everybody on?"
From the B.S.'n before the call, we'd usually know who wasn't on the call. Every
so often we might do a roll-call....but not necessarily. Occasionally someone would
get patched in late that we hadn't even missed. It happened. Who knows what procedure
was used on the conferance call between the NDP & the Bloc & whomever else
was on that call....intentionally or unintentionally invited....or not invited. Who knows?
For all we know at this point in time, this "John Duncan" may never have been asked to
identify himself on this call. It would be interesting to hear an ENTIRE copy of this call
start to finish (if it exists) to examine how this guy made it through the entire call without
being noticed.
You are right - there is nothing illegal about the taping. For anyone in politics and even anyone of you that were given the same opportunity as Mr. Duncan was to assist your political party or the party of your choice, you would have jumped at the chance. The NDP etal were simply caught at a sneaky underhanded move and they are just making waves to try to cover their under handedness.
"get a clue", "ignorant", What is it with forums that people can't disagree without throwing a few insults in there. If you disagree say so, but do it from across the table not from the pulpit.
I do not condone the shooting of anyone, I simply stated a hundred years ago they likely would have. I do not wish to regress back to there either. Having a party who is bent on splitting a country to form their own would have never been tolerated just after confederation.
Viewing the Bloc as traitors depends entirely on ones view of what you want of a country doesn't it. I'm sure my wish to see Western Canada split from the east is viewed as traitorous by someone in Toronto so why should anyone in Quebec or Toronto be surprised when I view the BLOC and Mr Layton as I do.
And yes the conservatives explored the same possibility but with some foresight of how it would be viewed dropped the idea.
Just my personal preference but bending the rules seems the better choice than supporting conspiring with traitors.
How much information do I have on Conservative's closed door meetings? None, until they've made their decisions and then made them public. They're intelligent enough to not invite opposition party members to their meetings. The Liberals are usually intelligent enough to do the same in their closed door meetings.
Their seperatist crap is on the back burner! It's their raison d'etre! Without the seperatist crap they don't exist. No matter what Mr Duceppe regurgitates his objective is always the seperation of Quebec and the splitting of Canada.
A coalition might have been acceptable if we had been a couple years into a term and the conservatives were failing badly. To do it immediately after an election where the Canadian people gave the conservatives another mandate, albeit a minority, shows it 's nothing more than some bitter men conspiring in a bloodless coup. Coalitions are legitimate options but people seem to want have their ruling government voted in. The Liberals and NDP did not get that vote and did not let us know of their planned coalition before the vote therefore the lack of legitimacy.
If the three opposition parties decide to vote non-confidence then call an election and we'll vote on their decision to disolve government.
Just my opinions, and they're open for any discussion.
Calling someone ignorant isn't an insult, it is an observation based on actions or comments.
I explained to you the common factors most people who are ignorant on the overall situation tend to mix up, I suggested you get a clue on this situation and I gave you one.
You called them traitors.... I called you ignorant because they are not traitors and did what they are legally allowed to do within our form of Democracy..... ignorant fits quite nicely if you ask me.
Now if you want me to actually give you some insults, by all means, just ask.
You also forget that that party whom you claim is devoute to splitting up the country run through the same democratic principles as every other party in our government, and they first have to get the approval of the people of Quebec to even fathom an attempt to divide the nation.
At this point the desire to seperate in Quebec is probably the lowest it's been in a long time and would be a foolish attempt on their behalf to try and seperate. People in quebec vote for the Bloc not solely because they want to leave Canada..... but the Bloc have more of their own best interests at play then any of the other available political parties, like the Liberals, the Cons, NDP, etc.....
However, if Harper keeps up his banter about seperatists and how Quebec it out to get us all (When once again, the desire is at it's lowest) he very well risks starting the whole seperation back up the more he trivializes and villianizes our fellow Canadian citizens living in Quebec.
Just because they voted Bloc, doesn't mean they want to seperate.
Dunno.... but if Quebec or any other province wants to leave the nation and do things on their own, and the greater majority of their population is all for it, then I see it as their democratic right to do so...... forcing them to remain in a country just for the sake of the country or those in other provinces is not democratic..... we might as well be the Soviet Union trying to oppress our satellites to keep the motherland intact.
If a province wants to leave the nation, so be it.... is it being a traitor? that's pretty subjective depending on your perspective as you said...... but which is worse..... being a traitor to the flag or being a traitor to the people around you in your community that really matter?
The people make up a country, not the flag or the name of a country..... and forcing people to stay against their own will is not unity, it's not patriotic, it's oppression for your own personal gains at the expense of other's wishes.
If you truly believe in democracy, then they and everybody else in this country should have the democratic right to choose whether or not they stay in this country.
If you want to leave, I'd have no ill will against you.... that's your right.... just as I would hope others would respect my rights if I did the same.
You may not like the decisions I make in my life, and I may not like the decisions you make..... but that's what makes this country a democracy in the first place..... the right to choose.
It is easy to change your reasons after the fact when the spotlight is on the actions you were thnking of taking....... the point is, is that they thought about it and planned on how to carry it out...... the Liberals and NDP also thought about it, planned on how to carry it out, and have been pretty public about their intentions....... but nothing has been done yet either, anymore then what the Cons did in the past.
Neither has hit reality yet.... the only difference is that it seems the Liberals and NDP have enough balls to carry it through if they need to.
But I guess that's the difference the Cons are willing to jump all over and attempt to scare everyone into thinking that the Bloc supporting them is actually some kind of threat, when there is zero chance of any kind of risk to our nation or it's unity.
The only risk to our unity is Harper continuing to pit one part of the nation against the rest with his fear mongering tactics over things that will never materialize.
Well I already explained my view on your preference towards the "Traitors."
Yes, because the NDP actually invited the party they wish to topple on purpose so they can hear their plans in detail.... that makes perfect sense.
And don't think the NDP are the only party to have ever screwed up...... remember how our little friend in the Conservatives with his hell's angels girlfriend somehow left top seceret documents at her place? That seems a hell of a lot worse then this situation...... but it got brushed off like usual because the Conservatives are only human afterall :roll:
Don't forget about this:
Leaked speech reveals Tory environment blueprint
CTV.ca | Leaked speech reveals Tory environment blueprint
"An accidentally leaked Conservative speech revealed on Tuesday night key details of the government's long-awaited national environmental initiative."
Both times were due to the Conservative's complete incompetence...... yet with this situation with the NDP, it's the conservatives deliberately taking advantage of an unapproved access and recording of their meeting.... which they also deliberately handed to media outlets like they did nothing wrong.
They can't do it without the support of the people of Quebec and the Quebec people do not support seperation at this time.... even members of the Bloc admit this..... the only reason why they still get support and are still a party in our government at present is because they still hold Quebec's interests higher then any other political party at present. They already claimed that if they brought the seperation stuff back to the forefront, they'd end up losing more support then they currently have.
After the last vote on seperation back in the mid-90's they lost a crap load of support and the only way to maintain themselves was to focus more on what Quebec needs within our nation.
And once again...... this Coalition gives the Bloc only veto power on whatever they pass..... which isn't really any real power since they already agreed to pass anything the coalition wanted and have full co-operation for a period of months (10 if memory serves correctly) and after that all bets are off.
If they screw around and break their promise, then the Coalition goes to an election and we start over.
If after the number of months expire on the Bloc's promise and they start making the government difficult with their given position, then the Coalition goes to an election and we start over.
If the Bloc attempt to bring up the seperation things during all of this, then the Coalition goes to an election and we start over.
Either way, the Bloc are locked and really can't do anything..... the only thing they can do is help screw over the Conservatives and perhaps help get some work done within our government for once.
To me, there are no risks, and there is nothing to worry about.
And yet, Harper during the election, claimed that he was going to work with the other parties, he said he was going to go beyond all the bickering and crap, when in fact he started it on the very first day. He never explained any of his plans during the election and he never had any plans to begin with (As opposed to what he claimed) which was apparent when the government started back up. Every single party in the government agreed somethng needed to be done to help our economy...... yet Harper and the conservatives did the total opposite, they didn't heed any of their suggestions and dropped the gloves right at the start..... they didn't work with any of the other parties, in fact they attempted to pit everybody against one another just like they did prior to the last election, which was Harper's excuse for calling an election in the first place, when obviously it was a power grab.
Harper has continually lied to the public, he has broken his promises, he is not working with the rest of the government and therefore he has lost all confidence and legitimacy.
If all of the other parties are willing to work together and get things done, then I say all the power to them..... Harper already had his chances..... twice.... and failed both times.
One can call and election, but they are also allowed to form a coalition. I personally have no issue with either, although I would prefer the coalition so that the government we just voted in can still have a chance to work, and to save a couple of bucks in tax payer's money.
I mean, what happens if we go through another election..... the same results occur, the Cons are still a minority, none of them get along still........
do we go back for a third election?
a forth?
5th?
By that time our country would be in shambles.... if it'd be a country at all.
"Ignorant" is one of those words that not only has a definition but also a connotation and intelligent people are very careful how and when they use it.
Calling somebody a f...ing retard isn't an insult, it is an observation based on actions or comments.....using your argument.
Nice try. I'm not sure what is worse. Insulting someone or thinking everybody else is to stupid to realize it was an insult. I feel I should call you a typical NDP'er but that's terribly insulting so I won't.
Which is why I used it in the first place.
I have admited many times in the past and will do again in the future about things that I myself am ignorant to....... I will call myself ignorant when it applies. When I am called ignorant and I don't think it properly applies, I will argue it.
But I don't consider it anything close to an insult...... call me ignorant all you like as many times as you like.
If it's true, there's not much I can dispute now is there?
Speaking of definition:
^ That is how I understand the word and that is how I use the word.... if I wanted to use an insult, I would use something along the lines of an idiot or stupid, or other similar insult (Those are just examples, I am not implying)
When Lineman refers to the Bloc as Traitors, or refer to other parties who deal with them as traitors, I believe they are ignorant on the details...... so I call them ignorant, while I explain why I feel this.
If you still think I am trying to get personal, then you need to get a thicker skin.
Actually I call people who don't stay on topic and continually try to sideline the topic with irrelevent matters that don't relate, trolls.
;-) ?siht ekil elttil a kool stsop ym t'ndluow ,rorrim a ni gnikool elihw gnipyt saw I fi dnA
It's called ethics. anybody who would "tape" without them knowing about it is seriously lacking in ethics and/or morals.
From the conservatives, that is hardly surprising