The Shotgun Blog
« Rita | Main | The Democrats' SCOTUS Double-Standard »
Friday, September 23, 2005
The Western Standard is about to get some free publicity
The Western Stardard is getting some free publicity from the Ottawa Citizen, courtesy of a very nervous Bruno Labonte:
The chauffeur who accompanied Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew on government-funded trips abroad is considering legal action after an item on a conservative magazine's website questioned whether they had a romantic relationship.
Kevin Libin, editor-in-chief of the Calgary-based Western Standard, wrote in a web log entry this week that the media should have asked about the nature of Mr. Pettigrew's relationship with driver Bruno Labonte following a report that they had travelled together to Europe and South America.
Note that the entry in question never categorically asserted that such a relationship existed. In fact, Libin pondered the fact that to suggest it as a reasonable avenue of investigation should not be considered out of bounds, no more than a question concerning a heterosexual relationship being behind questionable trips:
I cannot imagine that, in a country where same-sex partners have the same rights as heterosexual couples, that suggesting a romantic entanglement between one man and another man would qualify as any sort of slander. And yet, doesn't it seem like there might be more to this tale of the minister and his driver than a strictly professional relationship?
In fact, the whole thrust of the piece is not that such a relationship existed, but that there is a nervousness in the media to ask such a question:
Reporters cannot be oblivious to what this looks like. I know the Tories are secretly gossiping about it. So why, as far as I can tell, is no one asking the minister about this? In a country where gay couples enjoy the same rights as straight ones, shouldn't any relationship be subject to the same questions?
But for asking why no one is asking why, Labonte is pondering legal action.
That is a nervous overeaction to a hypothetical question about a question. He's doing himself no favours. People will wonder if Labonte doth protest too much.
Now unfortunately, the Ottawa Citizen doesn't actually link to either the magazine or the blog with this article, but here's hoping there is a significant increase in traffic at the Western Standard as Labonte's protestations serve only to drive people to wonder what all the hub-bub is about.
Of course, perversely, many of them will leave convinced (or at least strongly suspecting) that Pettigrew and Labonte are gay. Sometimes you just gotta lay low.
Any bets on whether Pettigrew is calling Labonte and telling him to shut it?
[Cross-posted from Angry in the Great White North]
Posted by Steve Janke on September 23, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83459b4c469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Western Standard is about to get some free publicity:
» Western Standard from Bene Diction Blogs On
The Western Standard weblog may be sued. Kevin Libin, editor-in-chief made a blog entry regarding the relationship between Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew and his driver. The blog entry stemmed from a Globe and Mail story. You can find Globe ... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-09-23 8:43:54 AM
» Everything Old is New Again from Cannuckistan Chronicles
It is my new understanding that one cannot publicly say "Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew swapped spit with his chauffer, Bruno Labonte, while visiting "Romantic Locations" at the taxpayers expense." unless they have unequivocal proof of the... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-09-23 11:29:04 AM
Comments
It is a common Liberal tactic to try to stop discussion of an issue - the tactic is to threaten to sue.
However, as several of us have pointed out frequently, the issue is not whether or not Pettigrew or Labonte are hetero or homosexual. Mr. Pettigrew can insist his private life is private - and indeed it is, until he expects the public to pay for it. If that is the case, then he himself has made the private into a public issue.
The issue is simple. Mr. Pettigrew had the taxpayer pay for Mr. Labonte's travel on at least three international trips. Mr. Labonte's job description is - chauffeur. Since his work was not required on these trips, then, Mr. Pettigrew must explain why he expects the taxpayer to fund them. Mr. Pettigrew then, completely on his own, defined Mr. Labonte's services on these trips as 'security advisor'. Not services but 'advisor'. This is ambiguous and again, is not on his job description as a chauffeur. And, security is provided by the RCMP and the country where Mr. Pettigrew is visiting. Not by his home chauffeur. So we must repeat our question. Why does Mr. Pettigrew expect us to fund this travel when neither driving nor security services are required?
Job descriptions are important; they protect the worker from being asked to do, and responsible for, work that is not in that description and for which he might lack expertise. They protect the employer from paying for work that is outside the expertise of the worker.
The civil service is not a private corporation; it is completely public. Therefore, those job descriptions are public, the work done is public, the reimbursements and benefits are public. Such information protects the worker and importantly, it protects the public, i.e., the taxpayer.
The question is: Why did Mr. Pettigrew insist that the Canadian taxpayer pay for the trips of Mr. Labonte? Mr. Labonte is an employee of us, of Canadian taxpayers. What is there in his job description that was required on these foreign trips?
So far, Mr. Martin, Mr. Pettigrew and Mr. Labonte are refusing to answer us. Remember, we are the employers; we pay the bills. We have the right to answers.
Posted by: ET | 2005-09-23 8:47:22 AM
May we conclude that the chauffeur is a "political assistant"? Where are the job descriptions for "chauffer" and "political assistant"? The Canadian taxpayer wishes to see/peruse these job descriptions. In addition,who was the aide who helped Pettigrew over the wall? Did the aide also escape over the wall? RSVP >>>>
Globe & Mail. 16 Sept/05/.>>>>>
Sitting with the Prime Minister at yesterday's news conference, Mr. Pettigrew defended his chauffeur's travel, saying Mr. Labonté provided communications and logistical assistance in addition to security.
"I always bring two assistants from my cabinet office who work very hard; there is always a lot of work to be done for political assistants on those trips," he said. "I have always respected all the directives of the Treasury Board and on each of those trips, I can tell you, they have done their share of the work."
Mr. Pettigrew said that Mr. Labonté also accompanied him to a World Trade Organization summit in Seattle in 1999, where a riot broke out and the minister had to scramble over a wall -- with his aide's help -- to escape the violence.
Ministers of Trade and Foreign Affairs always travel with a protocol officer who handles all logistical matters, federal officials said earlier this week. Security is provided by the host country or the RCMP.>>>> more
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050916/PETTMARTIN16/TPNational/TopStories
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-09-23 10:02:30 AM
ET; You have made excellent points here and I thank you for the clear statement of the conflict in question. Lets hope some of the sheeple in the east come over to do some 'grazing' at the WS. Think of what they might learn?? No wonder the PP is upset, can't have the sheeple ( who vote pinko) asking questions!!
Posted by: jema54 | 2005-09-23 10:13:25 AM
It is almost a comedy.
Wonderful clarification by ET. Now from the viewpoint of our lib friends, this question is out of bounds. Once they are elected, they are the bosses and we are the employees, right? So is it any of our business putting our nose into the trips of our bosses?
To be a more nasty employee, I would try to find a journalist to investigate a little further in those sort of things concerning our lib bosses!
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-09-23 10:31:43 AM
The fact of the matter is that there is a double standard and it will be equally applied by all of the Ottawa press.
What was it Don Martin said last week? Something to the effect that once you've been writing in Ottawa for any length of time, you quickly run out of legitimate things to write about.
Did Pettigrew's predecessor, Bill Graham ever threaten to sue Frank/Frontpage Magazine for revealing an inappropriate relationship? Inappropriate for anyone, let alone a UofT professor/UC lawsoc lawyer/Minister?
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-graham - Answers on Graham
In turn, did he threaten to sue Bill Whatcott (sp) for distribiting flyers in Graham's riding, flyers that cited the article. No!
Did the MSM press report on it?
No, only to condemn the snide remark about it in the House by Gallant.
The alternatively oriented MP's appear to get the same blind eye treatment once afforded Catholic priests.
And judging from how long that took that matter to be seriously addressed... this public discussion will not likely take place until Pettigrew is in the Senate.
And to those who assert that Pettigrew and Graham's private lives are private, they both crossed that private/public line by becoming personal cabinet activists/lobbyists demanding SSM be law and publicly attacking opponents.
Posted by: Johnny | 2005-09-23 12:25:49 PM
I maintain that this is a basic strategical tactic of the Liberals - to threaten to sue. Remember, this is the party that rejects the right of the citizens to dissent. You are either a Liberal or you are un-Canadian. They have made that clear.
The strategy is to move a problematic issue into the personal and attack the people who are concerned with this issue. This is a basic tactic to divert attention from the Real Issue.
The Real Issue in this instance, is the question of whether or not Mr. Pettigrew abused the public employer, namely us, the taxpayer, by having us pay for the costs of travel of an employee who had no valid right to undertake that travel. That is the ONLY ISSUE. Mr. Martin, Mr. Pettigrew - are refusing to answer.
The basic issue rests on the job description. We, the employer, expect to pay for work done according to our job description. Mr. Labonte is a chauffeur. Period. Whether or not he is also a personal friend of Mr. Pettigrew is not the issue, for we cannot deny anyone the right to hire personal friends IF, IF, IF they are qualified.
There's hardly much qualification for a driver to and fro Ottawa-Montreal, using that practically vacant Hwy 417, which was built, I think, just for the use of the Oligarchic Clique of our Montreal-Ottawa government.
But, that's the end of his job description. Whether he is a friend or not - that's the end of his job description.
Mr. Pettigrew cannot take him on foreign trips as his 'security advisor' (as suggested by Mr. Pettigrew) because we, the taxpayer, have not authorized such a job description added to the chauffeur description. Furthermore, such advice or assistance is not required.
Nor can he take him on his trips to provide 'logistical advice' (whatever that means) for that is not in his job description. I am always impressed by the intelligence of chauffeurs, but, I, as his employer, would want to be certain that he was knowledgeable enough in the political scenario, to be able to provide valid 'logistical advice' to Mr. Pettigrew.
Nor can Mr. Pettigrew take him with him to assist him to climb fences in Seattle - yet another suggestion of Mr. Pettigrew to support the value of Mr. Labonte (question - was the necessity to climb over a wall known BEFORE the trip, such that Mr. Pettigrew knew well in advance that he would require a 'foot up' from and only from Mr. Labonte??)
The reason for the job description mandate is to prevent abuse. Abuse of the employee and abuse of the employer. We are the employer. We do not want situations where, for example, best friends can be hired by our government in minimal skill jobs (such as chauffeurs)..and then..without our agreement, be funded for foreign trips, for meetings, for whatever. That is an abuse of us, the employer, the taxpayer.
Nor do we want situations where friends or relatives are hired in situations in which they are unqualified. I'm sure we all remember the Walkerton tragedy- and one of the excuses of those charged was: "You (the public) shouldn't have hired us; we weren't experts in safe water supplies". So, job descriptions are important.
The question remains - How can Mr. Pettigrew and Mr. Martin expect us, the employer (something they always in their hubris forget), to agree to funding the travel costs of an individual whose services, according to his job description which is all we are legally obliged to pay - we do not agree are necessary.
IF, IF, we are being abused by these two (Martin and Pettigrew)then, they will refuse to answer us. They will try to shut us up and prevent our questions - the most immediate tactic is indirect mutterings and hearsay mutterings of libel. Rubbish.
It's our money. We are the employer. Mr. Martin and Mr. Pettigrew have forgotten this fact.
Posted by: ET | 2005-09-23 1:39:36 PM
Very nice analysis, ET. I agree with your thesis, except for the third-last & last paragraphs. I don't think that the notion of state workers as employees of the voters, or the citizens, or the taxpayers, is valid in practice, nice though it is in theory.
In practice, politicians are in the business of selling votes to the electorate. They work for their backers, such as the Conservative Party of Canada, or the Total Strong Power oligarchy. In order to market said votes they have to add value to them, which they do by promising "free" stuff to the electorate if voted in, to be paid for by extorting funds from the citizenry. In the process of moving around those huge amounts of funds in the name of providing "free" stuff to the voters, the backers of the "winning" politicians get the benefits (of various kinds) that drive the entire mechanism.
The politicians can (in some cases) fire apparatchiki, who in turn can (in some cases) fire ordinary state workers, and we can in some sense fire politicians (by voting them out), but we are not in practice their employers. In practice, politicians' employers are their power backers.
As H. L. Mencken wrote, "The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
Indeed, it is knowing the above that makes me very leery of advising Mr. Harper on what he should do, for I am a meritocratist, not a politician.
Posted by: Tony | 2005-09-23 2:39:45 PM
Tony - I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you saying that the employer of, let's say, Martin, Pettigrew - and Labonte is actually the Liberal Party??
They may be ideologically loyal to that party, but they, legally, are not employees of the Liberal Party. Their salaries come from the public purse. That means us. The taxpayer.
I'm speaking only in the legal sense and I think that's where the issue has to be focused. On the legal realities of the employer-employee infrastructure.
We, the taxpayer, are supposed to be protected against the abuse of our money. In the case of our government selecting employees to carry out government work - we are protected by the job descriptions. An employee, paid by us, even though hired via our government, is working, not for the political party, but for us. The people who pay their salaries. They shouldn't forget this legal fact.
The job description protects us - and what Martin, Pettigrew etc are ignoring, is that Mr. Labonte's job description does not entitle him to our funding his travels with Mr. Pettigrew. That's because his job description defines him as a chauffeur. Not as a 'security advisor'; not as a 'logistics assistant', not as an office worker; not as a 'help-me-over-the-fence' assistant. If Mr. Pettigrew wants him for these other tasks, then, he has to redefine the job description, post that description, and when he hires Mr. Labonte for these other tasks - he has to assure us - first, that those tasks are necessary in these foreign countries (they weren't) and second, he has to assure us that Mr. Labonte is indeed, capable of those tasks.
If we don't insist on the job description, then it is easy for anyone in power to hire their friends and whomever, to do any and everything, to receive any and all benefits, including the travel, the meals, the cars, etc, etc..
Martin said that 'it's up to the Minister' whom he hires and how he uses his staff'. No it isn't; accountability means that whoever is paid by us - is accountable to us. It is NOT up to the Minister. There's an intermediary infrastructure that protects us against such Ministers. It's called, in this case: the job description.
Posted by: ET | 2005-09-23 3:09:29 PM
Understood, ET. Certainly in the legal sense I again agree with you. My sub-point to your excellent original dissertation is only that, in practice, in a representative democracy, public law can only be implemented through the backing of politicians, via their exercise of the power to govern that we second to them. As a result, pace law, politicians work for their power brokers, which in practice aren't any of us, indeed, their backers are organizations, not people.
As Sir Humphrey once pointed out to Hacker, if I may paraphrase: "Nonsense, Minister, the Department of Education does not work for the students, it works for the teachers." In general, the Department of X works for X-ers, not X-ees.
It's when we see the state apparatchiki abusing the law ostensibly created in the name of the commons, in order to personally benefit to a degree unsupported by their contributions to the commons (which is where the Labonte contention comes in to play), that we see the limitations of the public system of justice in a representative democracy. Of course, non-democracies aren't famous for having better systems of justice, as Sir Winston once pointed out so eloquently.
So it becomes an endless battle, the endemic misbehaviour of all large systems of public "management", versus the boundless spirit of free human beings. In other words, I agree with you, ET, this whole affair stinks. I'm just riffin' on the back beat.
Posted by: Tony | 2005-09-23 4:07:19 PM
Question now is, now that the Libs have threatned to sue, will Mr. Libin continue to be a journalist, or will he pull an Andrew Coyne on us?
Posted by: old squid | 2005-09-23 6:10:00 PM
I think you're being a bit gratuitous there, Old Squid. 'Course, that's just my opinion.
Posted by: Tony | 2005-09-23 6:24:44 PM
Tony,
I meant no criticism of Mr. Libin, but ,I think the question is legit. The great Coyne, who, at one time was probably Canada's best read Blogger, disappeared at the threat of the lawsuit. I just want to know if we can expect to see Mr. Libin's well thought out work continue in the W.S. or not.
Posted by: old squid | 2005-09-23 6:49:49 PM
What I was thinking, Old Squid, is that Mr. Coyne ran a one-man web log that became the target of a bunch of ne'er-do-wells that turned negative his net return on investment in the endeavour (I don't mean money, I mean time and attention). I do not begrudge him that call in any way.
Mr. Libin's situation is not equivalent, so even though I'll be carrying a sign in the protest march if this becomes a freedom of speach and the press issue, I just don't see the value of conflating this with the matter of Mr. Coyne.
Posted by: Tony | 2005-09-23 7:10:57 PM
Coulda swore I left a comment here somewhere? Lifs computer and searches to no avail.
What is your policy on censorship anyway? Let me guess only when it suits you!
Posted by: NL Expatriate | 2005-09-23 7:28:01 PM
So I lift my computer and search too, but nope, it's not here either Expatriate. For the record, I've been commenting here at the Shotgun since April 14, 2004, and it's never dropped a comment on me once yet. They always appear a few seconds after I post them, so there's clearly no human censor in the loop.
I betch'a you didn't actually post it ;-)
Posted by: Tony | 2005-09-23 7:37:15 PM
Whoa, old squid, you must have been battling a sperm whale in the deep during a few of his columns, because Coyne's still swinging. Read his column from last Wednesday's National Post, "Holding editors to account" -- it's about as acute an account of the sliding state of Canadian MSM journalism as I've ever read.
In it he points out that "any theory, no matter how crackpot, can gain a respectful hearing in this country, so long as it asks us to believe the worst about the Americans or their government: Anti-Americanism inoculates even the worst cranks from serious scrutiny".
Kind of makes you think of CBC/CTV/Globe and Mail/LPC, at a timely time, does it not?
Posted by: EBD | 2005-09-23 8:58:20 PM
When comments are deleted (and they are, for vulgar or libelous language) we replace the text with the word "deleted" and leave the original commenter's name and the time of the post. My guess is you just hit the wrong key on your computer, NL. Why not try again?
Posted by: Kevin Libin | 2005-09-23 11:33:15 PM
EBD,
I guess I should have been a little clearer on Coyne. AndrewCoyne.Com has had four entries on it since 30 May 2005.The comments section has been suspended.
Thanks for filling me in on what he is doing in print.
Posted by: old squid | 2005-09-24 11:00:07 AM
These two men should have their history checked-tax payers money spent for checking.
Posted by: Larry | 2005-09-24 3:20:56 PM
* Media should be asking questions concerning Fed-Liberal MP Mr.Pettigrew and his chauffeur Mr.Labonte,if Mr.Pettigrew spent tax payers money on Mr.Labonte. Including lunches,dinners,gifts and trips,ect.,. Their history together should be check for what and if Mr.Pettigrew spent tax payers money for Mr.Labonte.
Posted by: Larry | 2005-09-24 3:45:43 PM
The PP and the PMPM and the Cret, Larry. Remember when paule could not recall how many canadian $ went into backing his shipping line, (he forgot 4 zeros)? The sacks of cocaine found on one of his boats? The envolvement of Cordex (his Co. set up in the oil for food scam with Saddam et al) in contributions to the said election campaign? What about a recipt for a multi million dollar business written on a srap of paper (like old Nevel Chamberlain and Hitler the other "scrap of paper"; that is our street brawler, the bellowing Cret)? The whole sordid adscam affair? This is just the tip of the iceburg. Why arn't taxpayers suing and ranting and demanding that the fur fly? There is so much stupidity in this country - it is revolting- and it should BE revolting against it's internal hired hacks that were mistakenly given a job. FIRE the Liberanos!!! All cannons on deck.
Posted by: jema54 | 2005-09-25 1:30:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.