i listened to the article on the radio yesterday (huzzah! for the cbc and an hour-long drive to work!), and the implications made me squirm. -gov't said it'd be okay for her to be a MEMBER of the organization, but not for her to be the leader. this most likely stems from the british parliamentary tradition of the faceless bureaucrat. have your beliefs, but don't be visible with 'em. then again, being the leader of a group vs. a spokesperson or activist for the group... perhaps the leader is not a high-profile position... -i am glad that she could be a member of whatever political party or belief system, because i don't like the concept that a person's place of employment could/should interfere with one's personal beliefs. -the problem is, it's the concept of impropriety. public servants have to be above reproach and avoid the perception of conflict of interest at all costs. it reminds me of the weekly lie-detection tests on federal employees in snowcrash. but where do you draw the line? if her job doesn't directly impact quebec, then why the issue? -reminds me of the dude who can't get his canadian passport because he admitted that he was once (and trained in their camps), and his family was currently, a supporter of a terrorist organization. where do personal rights and freedoms fit in with government?
it makes me unhappy that a separatist is taking her paycheque from the government of canada. but it doesn't bother me any more than anarchist punks sucking up tax dollars. fuck the government, give me my welfare!
-gov't said it'd be okay for her to be a MEMBER of the organization, but not for her to be the leader. this most likely stems from the british parliamentary tradition of the faceless bureaucrat. have your beliefs, but don't be visible with 'em. then again, being the leader of a group vs. a spokesperson or activist for the group... perhaps the leader is not a high-profile position...
-i am glad that she could be a member of whatever political party or belief system, because i don't like the concept that a person's place of employment could/should interfere with one's personal beliefs.
-the problem is, it's the concept of impropriety. public servants have to be above reproach and avoid the perception of conflict of interest at all costs. it reminds me of the weekly lie-detection tests on federal employees in snowcrash. but where do you draw the line? if her job doesn't directly impact quebec, then why the issue?
-reminds me of the dude who can't get his canadian passport because he admitted that he was once (and trained in their camps), and his family was currently, a supporter of a terrorist organization. where do personal rights and freedoms fit in with government?
it makes me unhappy that a separatist is taking her paycheque from the government of canada. but it doesn't bother me any more than anarchist punks sucking up tax dollars. fuck the government, give me my welfare!
Reply
Leave a comment