Parks Canada staff banned from criticizing Feds

[Just the Facts]

So public is only when there is a mic or journalist around? Dubious.

No, nothing to do with electronics, more to do with intended audience. The journalist part might make it public, or potentially anyway, depends on the context. You've heard of people talking to journalists "off the record", right? Well that supposed to be a gentleman's agreement that they are no longer speaking publicly. Probably foolish to trust the journalist, but that's besides the point.

Whatever the blurring of the boundaries may be, there is a clear distinction between public and private speech.

 

[Kakato]

If someones doing something illegal then yes,let someone know.As for the general whining and bitching some will do then thats what I'm talking about.

 

[Tonington]

Whatever the blurring of the boundaries may be, there is a clear distinction between public and private speech.

How can a distinction be clear when the boundaries are blurry? That's an oxymoron.

If someones doing something illegal then yes,let someone know.

What if it's legal but harmful?

 

[Just the Facts]

How can a distinction be clear when the boundaries are blurry? That's an oxymoron.

No, it's not. Consensus on what constitutes the boundaries is blurry, and not neccessarily static.

Think about it.

Thank you.

 

[petros]

What if it's legal but harmful?

Then you are heading into Opinionland.

 

[JLM]

Shouldn't Facebook be like Vegas "What happen on facebook,stays on facebook"

You mean like what's said at a women's tea party stays at the tea party? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol:

 

[Niflmir]

No, it's not. Consensus on what constitutes the boundaries is blurry, and not neccessarily static.

Think about it.

Thank you.

The more I think about this the less sense it makes.

It is not that the boundaries are blurry, where we agree the boundaries are is blurry? That's exactly what it means for boundaries to be blurry.

 

[Kakato]

How can a distinction be clear when the boundaries are blurry? That's an oxymoron.



What if it's legal but harmful?

There comes a time when common sense should kick in.

 

[Angstrom]

I'm noticing a pattern with Mr.. Harper
Is it just me or Harper is slowly Gagging one by one all who opposes his way of doing or thinking?
Who will be Gagged next?

 

[Niflmir]

There comes a time when common sense should kick in.

Like when people aren't making your sandwich properly? Then it is definitely time to call 911, or 112, as the case may be.

Actually, even if somebody is doing something illegal, I'll use my own judgement to decide if the government needs to know. Too many things are illegal when they shouldn't be. What do I care if you are driving a motorcycle without a helmet, a car without a seatbelt? And so on.

 

[Kakato]

Like when people aren't making your sandwich properly? Then it is definitely time to call 911, or 112, as the case may be.

Actually, even if somebody is doing something illegal, I'll use my own judgement to decide if the government needs to know. Too many things are illegal when they shouldn't be. What do I care if you are driving a motorcycle without a helmet, a car without a seatbelt? And so on.

No,common sense where you do the right thing,I dont think a badly made sandwhich falls under that.

 

[Niflmir]

No,common sense where you do the right thing,I dont think a badly made sandwhich falls under that.

According to another thread, for some people, it clearly does.

Using your judgement is one thing, calling it common sense is just bravado masked as humility.

 

[Kakato]

According to another thread, for some people, it clearly does.

Using your judgement is one thing, calling it common sense is just bravado masked as humility.

Guess your idea of common sense and mine are different then.

 

[Just the Facts]

The more I think about this the less sense it makes.

It is not that the boundaries are blurry, where we agree the boundaries are is blurry? That's exactly what it means for boundaries to be blurry.

Sure, I guess. Either way, point is that blurry boundaries between A and B don't negate that there's a clear distinction between A and B. Once you get past the blurry border regions and into the heartland of A, you clearly know that you're not in B.

 

[SLM]

Sure, I guess. Either way, point is that blurry boundaries between A and B don't negate that there's a clear distinction between A and B. Once you get past the blurry border regions and into the heartland of A, you clearly know that you're not in B.

Exactly.

 

[CDNBear]

Quite reasonable.

As a group that operates within a hierarchy, not unlike the military. Seems quite as reasonable as Army personnel having the same restrictions placed upon them.

 

[petros]

Quite reasonable.

As a group that operates within a hierarchy, not unlike the military. Seems quite as reasonable as Army personnel having the same restrictions placed upon them.

You're not allowed to be rotten to the Corp?

 

[SLM]

Evidently their employers don't.

Commenting on the OP:
Where I work, I am not allowed to speak about my company publically. They too have whole department about media relations. A typical company does want to present the image they want to present to the public. What I see here is that the government is trying to do the same thing. However, given its the government, I would agree only that they should not be publically commenting on work their individual department is working on. For example, a worker in Parks Canada should be free to voice displeasure of their local MP or government handling of the budget bill but not about how Parks Canada is being run. That is where I would draw the line.

That is a very reasonable compromise in my opinion.

It's not unreasonable to restrict any staff from criticizing their direct employer's publically, however every citizen should have the right to criticize their government.

 

[petros]

Bank machines in Japanese confuse me.

Signed - Adanac Skrap

 

[CDNBear]

That is a very reasonable compromise in my opinion.

It's not unreasonable to restrict any staff from criticizing their direct employer's publically, however every citizen should have the right to criticize their government.

Why should public servants get special treatment, just because their boss in the Federal Gov't?

This site, is the very reason my last employer had a policy written and implemented, regarding just mere commentary, while citing the companies name.

It was an effective gag order posting anything that might shed a bad light on the company. Not just a restriction on posting anything bad about the company.