Parks Canada staff banned from criticizing Feds

[SLM]

Where would the standing gag order on military personnel fit in that equation?

I think the military is probably another completely unique situation as far as employment goes. I don't think one can compare how the military operates to how private enterprise operates.

I just think comparing public and private/ military and private is like comparing soup to nuts. They are distinct enough that we need to re-assess/re-evaluate the dynamic of the relationship between employer/employee in those situations. I'm not saying a whole new and different rule book here, just that we need to take other things into account than we do if we're talking about the average employer/employee relationship.

 

[CDNBear]

I think the military is probably another completely unique situation as far as employment goes. I don't think one can compare how the military operates to how private enterprise operates.

I just think comparing public and private/ military and private is like comparing soup to nuts. They are distinct enough that we need to re-assess/re-evaluate the dynamic of the relationship between employer/employee in those situations. I'm not saying a whole new and different rule book here, just that we need to take other things into account than we do if we're talking about the average employer/employee relationship.

Are military personnel not citizens, whose very life can be subject to danger based upon public policy?

Seems to me, life should beat livelihood hands down, non?

 

[petros]

The Corporation of Canada runs a subsidiary called Parks Canada. If you are an employee of Parks Canada you are still an employee of the Corporation of Canada.

 

[SLM]

Are military personnel not citizens, whose very life can be subject to danger based upon public policy?

Seems to me, life should beat livelihood hands down, non?

In general, my view is this. For any employee of the government to be restricted from speaking publicly about their own department, that's not unreasonable. It is not unreasonable because I think that individuals who are speaking about their particular department are seen to be speaking from some sort of authority, whether that's true or not. In this sense, it's no different than any other employer/employee relationship. And I believe is ultimately the reason why any employer would want to restrict their employees from speaking publicly about them. It's not even that it necessarily might be something bad that would be said but would appear to be representative when really it's just an individual's opinion.

However, they should not be restricted from speaking publicly about the government in general or about other areas of the government that they are not directly employed by. That I view as a right of citizenship, mitigated only slightly by the above mentioned circumstances.

In a general sense as well, I'd say the same overall thing can probably be said about military personnel. But while we are also dealing with private vs public sector in that case, we also have the civilian/military element that needs to be taken into account. I'm not saying it's better or worse, less of a citizen or more of a citizen. But being employed by the military is not 'just a job', at least I've never looked at it that way. There are just other things to consider that don't really apply to the average employer/employee relationship is all.

Again, that's general. Unless you're talking about something really specific, in which case I need to know what it is first, specifically, before I can comment on it.

 

[Just the Facts]

No, it's logically absurd to use salinity concentration as the contour or boundary of something geographic like a lake, or ocean.

And yet, we do it all the time. Everyone knows what is meant when one speaks of fresh water or salt (or sea) water. I'm guessing you wouldn't buy a nice cold bottle of sea water to quench your thirst on a hot day, would you? Why not? Wouldn't it be absurd to use salinity concentration as a boundary between potable and non-potable water?

Unlike something like private and public, salinity is a continuous variable that can be measured.... Lake Ontario is not devoid of cations and anions. It's salinity can be measured, and it's not zero. Most lakes are not.

Are there degrees of private or public speaking? You can measure them and assign quantitative ratios or intervals that would not be absurd?

So you agree with JLM then, all speech is public, as long as I can devise a way to find out what you said? THe only exception being if I wire a deaf mute you're talking to.

No, absoultely it does. If you can't define clearly where the two end, then you by extension cannot say that the two are clearly distinguished. There will of course be obvious cases where it's one or the other, but that does not mean there is a clear distinction between the two. That is illogical...

If there are cases where it's obviously one or the other, then they are clealy distinct. The concept of public speech is clear, and the concept of private speech is clear. Certain scenario's fall into a grey area where some may consider it public and others may consider it private. Thus the need for concensus. You've basically just affirmed my original point.

Think about that. There can't be a clear distinction between the two, if there are cases where it's not clear if it's one or the other. How this is even a point you want to argue is frankly baffling.

You just contradicted yourself. "There will of course be obvious cases where it's one or the other". Something can't be oviously one or the other, if one or the other are not clearly distinct.

Edit: PS - I am also baffled by this argument.

 

[Tonington]

Wouldn't it be absurd to use salinity concentration as a boundary between potable and non-potable water?

Now that those goal posts are moved, no it's not absurd. But this is disjointed again from public versus private. We can measure the salinity of the drinking water, and make a clear distinction with empirical values. Can you do the same for the boundary of something like private and public life? If so, then what is it?

You just contradicted yourself. "There will of course be obvious cases where it's one or the other". Something can't be oviously one or the other, if one or the other are not clearly distinct.

Not really. When an employee shows up to a press conference during the course of their working hours to give a statement, that is clearly public. When that employee is at home talking to their husband or wife at the dinner table, that is clearly private. If you attend a conference on your personal time, and are giving a lecture, now it's starting to get unclear. Are you not allowed to have a political opinion, simply because you happen to have some knowledge about the subject?

Maybe a diagram will help you. Here's a Venn Diagram:

The two circles represent public and private. In the middle, where they over-lap, there is confusion about which one of the two applies, isn't there? Yet where they don't overlap, it's clear which paradigm is operating. The boundaries are not clear in the middle where they overlap. The distinction is not clear.

 

[Just the Facts]

Which is exactly what I've been saying.

 

[Tonington]

Which is exactly what I've been saying.

You said the distinction is clear, even if the boundaries are blurred. Clearly, there are situations where it is not clearly distinct.

 

[Just the Facts]

lol yeah there are situations that are not clearly distinct. There's a distinct circle on the left, and a distinct circle on the right, with an overlapping area (blurred boundaries).

Thanks for the visual aid.

 

[captain morgan]

How so? Do you dispute that government employees are also taxpayers and consumers of government services?

Gvt employees pay taxes and consume services no different than every taxpayer in the private sphere.

I don't see what that has to do with anything

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Gvt employees pay taxes and consume services no different than every taxpayer in the private sphere.

I don't see what that has to do with anything

It affords the Right to speak of those services. Some of the caveats that are being talked of may apply. How many and when becomes the question. But, I would say, that all government employees have a general Right to speak of any area of government that is no a matter of public security; including their own area in terms of government policy. But not about operational specifics in their own field.

 

[captain morgan]

It affords the Right to speak of those services. Some of the caveats that are being talked of may apply. How many and when becomes the question. But, I would say, that all government employees have a general Right to speak of any area of government that is no a matter of public security; including their own area in terms of government policy. But not about operational specifics in their own field.

You are focusing exclusively on the rights of the individual(s), the other side of the coin is that the employer(s) also enjoy rights in this equation. That said, either there is one set of rights that applies to all employers regardless of sector or there isn't.

 

[lone wolf]

It affords the Right to speak of those services. Some of the caveats that are being talked of may apply. How many and when becomes the question. But, I would say, that all government employees have a general Right to speak of any area of government that is no a matter of public security; including their own area in terms of government policy. But not about operational specifics in their own field.

I can see an objection to employees complaining of Parks Canada policy. That's nothing new. Gagging someone on an inherent right to bitch about government policy smacks of an insecure overlord with things to hide

 

[JLM]

One bigger problem I noticed while employed in the public sector is what the employees were doing while bitching about the employer..................while they were doing it, sitting around with their finger where the sun don't shine...............doesn't make their point too convincing! :lol: