The Shotgun Blog

« Video: "A New Hope for Canada" | Main | Video: "Anarchy in the Grits, Eh!" »

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Eugene Parks responds...

***Updated -- Stephen had responded in the comments at my blog, but with his permission, I moved his comments to the main post, for clarity. Stephen's responses are highlighted in bold...

Eugene Parks has been availing himself of the Google search function, and stumbled upon my PREVIOUS POST, regarding his spiteful joint effort with Carol Jamieson to drag the Blogging Tories into the ethical gutter, and he simply couldn't resist giving me this high-minded response here and at my blog. I have forwarded this comment to Stephen, just in case Eugene doesn't have the guts to address him directly...

Blogging Tories is the result of the teamwork of members of the CPC party.

Stephen Taylor is its Webmaster and Editor. As Taylor self states, the Blogging Tories is his volunteer effort for the CPC. His volunteer Internet efforts went live on January 4th 2005. Later, he openly promoted his site at the first Conservative Party of Canada convention in March 2005 and was endorsed by its MPs, party officials, and members.

>> I didn't open a booth or set up a table or anything like that. Most of it was along the lines of "Hi, my name is Stephen Taylor. Nice to meet you". Free citizens, including MPs, party officials other members have the right to be fans of any initiative. Liberal Party member Warren Kinsella has been known to say nice things about me on occasion.

Previously, the CPC stated its plain intent to find a content channel to spin news in the coming election mimicking George Bush's campaign war room's use of web logs. After some months of technical frustration, Taylor's site was directly linked electronically to the CPC.

>> I think that Eugene might be referring to this post:
where I talk about emailing the Conservative webmaster to hassle him/her to get RSS. When RSS became available, this allowed us to repackage the feed. This means that we wrote a javascript applet that anybody could put on their site to display CPC news releases. Anyone who knows anything about RSS and feed syndication knows that this does not show a formal agreement between BT and the CPC. We've also repackaged Globe and Mail, National Post and Toronto Star feeds on our website. We certainly are not official agents of these newspapers.

He began receiving unique "news" tips from the CPC pressroom and staff.

His site moved from being a mere box on an American Service Provider to being a truly CPC team effort. Scores of CPC members, including

MPs, Association President, National Council Members, joined the effort. His site became a conscious group effort for the CPC with forethought and intent by both himself and the CPC. Make no mistake about it, this was a CPC team effort - not that of just individuals as Taylor would have us believe.

>> Our blogroll does link MPs and candidates. I would find it a farce if hyperlinking became illegal. All conservative-minded Canadians are free to join Blogging Tories. We have Conservatives that aren't fans of Stephen Harper yet believe in the conservative movement in Canada. Most if not all MPs are linked without their consent. They haven’t protested about my linking them. Only you, Eugene, seems to have a problem with me typing out the HTML that links my private website to an MP’s website. Do you propose persecuting everyone (Blogging Tory or not) that links to Monte Solberg’s blog?

Now of note recently, the Canada Election Act allows one to contribute to an election in one of three ways. A) as an individual, B.) as a registered third party, or C.) as part of a political party).

As a party of a political party your professional contribution, such as a website, needs to be expensed and declared and the material you distribute on behalf of the party must be identified as coming from the party.

>> I am not a professional webmaster! Furthermore, I certainly don't do this for a living.

Please see section 350 of the Elections Canada Act:
(1) A third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $150,000 during an election period in relation to a general election.

"expenses" means
(c) the commercial value of property and services, other than volunteer labour, that are donated or provided;

volunteer labour means:
any service provided free of charge by a person outside their working hours, but does not include such a service provided by a person who is self-employed if the service is one that is normally charged for by that person.

The cost of the hosting is $16 US per month.

As a registered third party, well, you have to register and work within spending limits. And as an individual, you have to work as an individual and live within personal spending limits.

In the case of blogging Tories, it was not an individual effort and it was done in conscious coordinated effort with the CPC.

>> This is a lie. It is certainly an individual effort (well... Craig Smith is the co-founder and co-administrator). I am under no obligation to the CPC regarding Blogging Tories. True, I have journalistic sources in the CPC... but then again I have sources in the LPC, in the NDP and in the MSM.

Stephen Taylor has stated that is was his volunteer effort for the CPC and the CPC was feeding him. Further, MPs were endorsing him and scores, even hundreds, of CPC members were engaged.

The Blogging Tories was not a legal third party as it was not legally registered.

Lastly, the Blogging Tories did not label its literature's source nor declare itself openly as an agent of the CPC despite the direct connection.

So, the question - where is the integrity here in regards to the Canada Elections Act? Only the Chief Electoral Officer or a judge are qualified to make a judgment.

Most certainly there is enough documentation that the question be answered.

Except when it would cause significant harm, laws should not prevent one from speaking any truth that you are willing to put your name to as your own material nor should you be prosecuted for doing so. Additionally, the law must also protect the integrity of free speech by requiring that authors identify their source, particularly if one is not truly the full source of that speech. Freedom of speech includes the responsibility of authors to own the words they use. Otherwise, free speech can be reduced to propaganda - even reduced to being a lie. When our free speech is part of democratic decision-making, equal weight to each citizen's voice should be given. During elections when sources of partisan information is not disclosed and monetary limits are not evenly respected by all debating parties, then the integrity of our free speech and debate is compromised.

Eugene Parks

>> And I'm letting Stephen have the last word...

Further, misrepresentations of my efforts, my reputation or my integrity will be met with civil action.

As for my volunteer status... I am not bound to any party. I volunteer solely for the "Stephen Taylor agenda", which includes electing Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, yet keeping true to my principles and calling the party on its stupidity when I see it.

~~I will have a response for this, but I will wait to see what Stephen has to say first~~...and I wouldn't mind hearing from some of my fellow Blogging Tories...After all, he's painting all of us with this brush! Anyone who has rebuttal or comment, please add it, or email me, if you'd rather keep it off the record.

***Update - I have provided my own response to Eugene HERE.

North American Patriot

Posted by Wonder Woman on January 19, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8342577a753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Eugene Parks responds...:

» Reader Tips from small dead animals
Taxpayers Federation; For years, tax weary British Columbians have travelled to sales tax free Alberta to buy various products. The BC government has taken the unprecedented step in pressuring Costco to reveal the names of BC customers who shop in... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-01-22 4:12:01 PM

Tracked on 2006-01-22 4:15:29 PM

Comments

I really appreciated the Blogging Tories offer of financial support. Without that $15,000 cash offer, I would never have joined. And the $50 per post? Man, I've been averaging 5 a day!

Oooops. Was I suppose to keep quiet about the cash?

Posted by: Richard Ball | 2006-01-19 8:43:16 PM

Elections Canada sees no problem with blogging during the election
by Romeo St. Martin

[PoliticsWatch Updated 4:15 p.m. December 2, 2005]

OTTAWA — Canadian bloggers can breathe a little easier Friday after Canada's chief electoral officer confirmed that he doesn't plan to have a crackdown on political blogs during the election campaign.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley said at a press conference in Ottawa that as far as he is concerned political blogs are a form of free expression, not political advertising.

"I don't think that there's going to be a major problem with respect to blogs," Kingsley said in response to a question from PoliticsWatch.

"This is a means where by a lot of people have decided they are going to express themselves

"If a political party or a candidate were to have a blog then that would fall under the financing regime. But if it's the supporters, there are going to be supporters all over for various parties and it's a form of self expression."

http://www.politicswatch.com/blogs-dec2-2005.htm

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-19 8:54:36 PM

Here's some additional information I came up with while investigating these matters yesterday per a thread at Small Dead Animals.

On 2004-05-18 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the matter of election advertising restrictions in the Canada Elections Act. On the matter of pamphleteering on the Internet, the 2004 SCC 33 decision seems quite clear that for now such activity is excluded from the restrictions, at least for non-commercial individuals, per clause 319 of the act, as follows:

--------
319. The definitions in this section apply in this Part.

"election advertising" means the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated. For greater certainty, it does not include

(a) the transmission to the public of an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, a commentary or news;

(b) the distribution of a book, or the promotion of the sale of a book, for no less than its commercial value, if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of whether there was to be an election;

(c) the transmission of a document directly by a person or a group to their members, employees or shareholders, as the case may be; or

(d) the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his or her personal political views.
--------

There are however some finer distinctions you may be interested in.

Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act says that: "No person shall transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public in another electoral district before the close of all of the polling stations in that other electoral district."

Section 329 was temporarily lifted for the 2004-06-28 election, following a decision by the British Columbia Supreme Court. The question of whether or not it applies in this election came up at a web site I was reading.

I called Elections Canada at (800) 463-6868 and after being transferred to an expert on this matter I was informed that section 329 of the Canada Elections Act is in fact in force in this 2006-01-23 election.

So I published that to the web site and then the question came up as to what the closing times of the polling stations are in each time zone. So I called Elections Canada again, and asked what hours the polls are open in each time zone, in local time.

--------
Newfoundland: 08:30 to 20:30
Atlantic: 08:30 to 20:30
Eastern: 09:30 to 21:30
Central: 08:30 to 20:30
Mountain: 07:30 to 19:30
Pacific: 07:00 to 19:00
--------

So here's the deal, at least to the degree that I'm not wrong: section 329 applies until the closing local time shown above in each zone, so in Mountain for example, one can't report to Pacific when one's polls close at 19:30, because it's still 18:30 there. But in Eastern, one can report to Central when one's polls close at 21:30, because it's already 20:30 Central.

So it's really a matter of two simple rules. (1) You can report your zone results to your zone and any zone east of you after your polls close. (2) You cannot report to zones west of you until their polls close, which may or may not be after yours do (check using the above table of local times).

But, and this is a big But, publishing a web site does probably count as "transmitting to the public", so if you publish a web site that can be viewed in Canada, you should not publish any election results until 19:00 Pacific Standard Time, unless you are intending to deliberately engage in civil unrest I suppose...

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson

By the way, I spoke to two very nice people on my calls to Elections Canada as above. I explained the information I was seeking, and why: to post the correct data to a web site where there is currently a discussion about this going on. They seemed quite delighted to provide a straightforward answer to a straightforward question by a happy person. After hanging around in web log comments sections, I can just imagine some of the calls they must get.

Meanwhile, although I have not checked with Elections Canada on this, I found an Elections Canada web page that says:

--------
"The new Canada Elections Act bans election advertising and the publication of new opinion surveys on election day. This measure applies to registered parties, candidates and third parties.

"The new Act reflects the growing importance of the Internet in public communications. The Internet is explicitly included in the sections on election advertising and the blackout provisions that appear in the Act.

"The new one-day ban on election advertising on polling day applies to the Internet, as well as to traditional print and electronic media. The ban does not apply, however, to survey results and election advertising that were already posted on the Internet before the start of the ban, and that have remained unchanged since they first appeared on the Internet."
--------

The relevant clauses would seem to be sections 323 and 328, as follows:

323. (1) No person shall knowingly transmit election advertising to the public in an electoral district on polling day before the close of all of the polling stations in the electoral district.

(2) The transmission to the public of a notice of an event that the leader of a registered party intends to attend or an invitation to meet or hear the leader of a registered party is not election advertising for the purpose of
subsection (1).

(3) For the purpose of subsection (1), a person includes a registered party and a group within the meaning of Part 17.

328. (1) No person shall knowingly cause to be transmitted to the public, in an electoral district on polling day before the close of all of the polling stations in that electoral district, the results of an election survey that have not
previously been transmitted to the public.

(2) No person shall transmit to the public, in an electoral district on polling day before the close of all of the polling stations in that electoral district, the results of an election survey that have not previously been
transmitted to the public.

(3) For the purpose of this section, a person includes a group within the meaning of Part 17.
--------

I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems to me that section 319 gives some blanket protection to Internet pamphleteers, and then 323, 328, and 329 place some explicit restrictions on that.

The Canada Elections Act is at: http://www.canlii.org/ca/ ...

PS: Since I wrote that summary, it has become clear to me that the official channels will not be releasing any poll results until 19:00 PST (22:00 EST), so unless someone leaks there won't be any data before it's supposedly ok anyway.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-19 9:03:41 PM

Here's some references to Mr. Parks from Google:

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/000680.html
http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/000767.html

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-19 9:54:08 PM

Stephen Taylor offered me a chance to join Blogging Tories by dropping me a comment in my comment box, since I don't maintain an external email address, so as to protect my secret identity in the Karl Rove Office of Canadian Manipulation.

I never responded. I can see, however, that joining Blogging Tories will infuriate Cruella De Ville of the 401 On Ramp -- Carol Jamieson.

Stephen Taylor -- I would be honored to be added to Blogging Tories as a way of making a small contribution to fighting the forces of Dalmation Destruction in Eastern Canada.

Rock on.

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild | 2006-01-19 10:00:03 PM

Tres amusant to see some supposedly intelligent adults trying to use some polished prose to make a very serious sounding case out of absolute hot air and B.S., does the phrase "jailhouse lawyers" apply?

Posted by: calgarian | 2006-01-19 10:29:17 PM

As I said on my blog, this is a really excellent way to show how dim you are concerning how current web technologies work with political parties, and not much more. Obviously any reasonable campaign law will be in your favor, as we see today.

However, if BT incurs any legal fees b/c of this stupidity, by all means, let me know, I'll be glad to contribute to the hat.

Posted by: Meg Q | 2006-01-20 12:42:16 AM

Funny how Eugene Parks mentions the Montreal Convention. I was in a policy discussion room (debating and voting on support for supply management) when I met Stephen Taylor for the first time. While we were talking, Monte Solberg walked by and Stephen introduced himself. The two hadn't even met prior to this occasion.
What's more, Stephen attended the event as a member of the media. Ridiculous.

Posted by: Trent Stanley | 2006-01-20 9:12:16 AM

So, from Mr. Stephen Taylor’s own works

1. Stephen Taylor is a member of the CPC
2. he is a volunteer for the CPC
3. he is working to elect Stephen Harper
4. he advertised blogging Tories at the CPC convention and was sanctioned by MPs
5. he was working as part of a team of at least 10 + 2 to elect conservatives
6. Blogging Tories is his volunteer effort as part of a team 10 + 2+ (to elect conservatives)
7. He is directly connected to the CPC electronically
8. He has “journalistic” connections within the CPC
9. He has released unique stories from the CPC
10. He has posted stories voluntarily at the request of the CPC

Anything not true in the above… it all comes from Stephen Taylor.

Conclusion: Stephen Taylor and the Blogging Tories are working for the CPC.

So, in the above facts, which Stephen Taylor stated publicaly on record (and others not yet released again), do we not know?

1. we was not working as an individual
2. he did not declare third party status
3. he was working for the CPC

So, how does the Canada Elections Act fit this situation?

Further, we do know that the CPC intended to use the Internet in this fashion during the election...

Posted by: Eugene Parks | 2006-01-20 2:05:00 PM

"he was working as part of a team of at least 10 + 2 to elect conservatives"

I was hoping to join the Blogging Tories to work on my standup comedy skills. The Truth is Out There.

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild | 2006-01-20 2:33:13 PM

"Further, we do know that the CPC intended to use the Internet in this fashion during the election..."

You are the longest running Hinterland Who's Who commercial that I have ever seen....

http://www.hww.ca/index_e.asp

"There are over 2.4 million caribou in Canada, but many subspecies, including several woodland caribou populations, are in trouble because of predation, habitat loss and Elections Canada alterations of their weblogs."

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild | 2006-01-20 3:19:08 PM

Watching the polls and worry about the greens splitting the vote and letting the conservatives in? Fear not if you use your vote wisely; watch listen read, a bit, each riding is different. When you see a strong showing of the conservatives and few liberal signs it’s a good chance that you’re in a CONS. Verses NDP so voting green might not help you see your desires met voting GREEN they take from the NDP and liberals with very few very soft conservatives. The conservative party’s history shows little regard for the environment or the poor. Just look at the main change of lowering the GST this does nothing for the poor or anyone making less then 50,000 a year.

Look around the world at countries that have conservative governments, the US in debt for generations in just 4 years, Australia violence and racial unrest because of poverty. Where would Canada fit, a police state to keep the masses in check?

Vote wisely

Posted by: sam | 2006-01-20 3:46:41 PM

Whether or not someone is working for the party in the common sense of Work = Force x Distance, Eugene, the Canada Elections Act uses legal definitions for its words, not common definitions (though many are the same).

As I wrote above, section 319(a) of the Act says that: "For greater certainty, "election advertising" does not include (a) the transmission to the public of an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, a commentary or news;" and it does not include "(d) the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his or her personal political views."

There are also references in sections 349(c) and (d) of the Act, which say that volunteer labour is *not* considered an election advertising expense. Section (2) says that: "volunteer labour" means any service provided free of charge by a person outside their working hours, but does not include such a service provided by a person who is self-employed if the service is one that is normally charged for by that person."

Other than that, I can find no references in the Act (I just manually searched) to the use of the term "work" in the sense which you seem to be implying Eugene. So the answer to your question seems to be: the Canada Elections Act does not proscribe this situation.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-20 3:56:01 PM

E Parks...sounds like a Liberal hack to me!

Posted by: PGP | 2006-01-20 5:05:33 PM

Section 319(a) of the Act says that: "For greater certainty, "election advertising" does not include (a) the transmission to the public of an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, a commentary or news;" and it does not include "(d) the transmission by an individual...

... read it

by an individual

Steven Taylor is on the record that he worked with a group of a dozen or more. He has also named names.

Posted by: Eugene Parks | 2006-01-20 7:29:47 PM

Of Eugene Parks and Carol Jamieson, I can only say that I have not seen such a protracted and agonizing exit from public life since Daryl Hannah in "Blade Runner".

Posted by: Paul Canniff | 2006-01-20 8:33:33 PM

For those of you following this thread, I have posted my response to Eugene at my place, to avoid monopolizing The Shotgun page >>>

http://www.northamericanpatriot.com/a_north_american_patriot/2006/01/connectthedots_.html

Thanks to all of you who provided helpful information.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2006-01-20 9:32:22 PM

"Of Eugene Parks and Carol Jamieson, I can only say that I have not seen such a protracted and agonizing exit from public life since Daryl Hannah in "Blade Runner"."

I was trying to decide whether it was Bill Murray's ill fated attempt to nail the gopher in Caddyshack or Ted Knight's attempt to avenge his humiliation at the hands of Rodney Dangerfield.

Either way, Eugene gets *no* respect.

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild | 2006-01-20 9:42:10 PM

Why are you confusing the word "work" with the word "transmission", Eugene? Even though 319(d) mentions "individual", 319(a) does not. Any of the sub-clauses of 319 are sufficient, you do not need them all. Moreover, nowhere is "work" mentioned. Why are you so unfamiliar with "work", Eugene?

Even if the CPC is benefiting from the "work" I am doing writing this post in argument with your allegations, Eugene (I am certainly displacing them there buttons on my keyboard by force), the work I am doing here is for me, not the CPC. I am not working for the CPC in any capacity that the Canada Elections Act cares about. See the note from John-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, that I posted above at 03:54 yesterday.

Are you working for the LPC, Eugene?

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-20 9:50:16 PM

Free speech should continue with a vengeance. Part of that right is the responsibility during an election for a simple declaration of what you are doing for who. That is what the Canada Elections Act requires.

If you are acting as a group, say so, register and live within the $150,000 limit. However, Blogging Tories did not registry and yet is on the record as working as a group and for the CPC.

If you are working for a political party, just say so and label your material as such and declare the expenses.

If you work as an individual, then blog to you heart’s content. [Aside: But don’t form an organized group (beyond links), don’t raise money together, don’t advertise together officially, don’t officially tell the world you are the CPC’s attack dog. Don’t advertise the CPC’s endorsement of you etc etc etc.]

If you do the above, without the negative examples noted, then you can talk all you want…. and so you should! It’s your country… love it and speak up for it.

In Summary: Either work as an Individual, or as a Group (Third Party), or as part of a Party… but just be open about it and live with in the rules for each. There is vast latitude within each way to participate in an election so long as you declare and follow the rules – which amount to declare which way you are participating and don’t over spend.

N.B. But again, be open about which way you are participating - to falsify your declaration may put you in violation of the Canada Elections Act.

Eugene Parks

Posted by: Eugene Parks | 2006-01-21 2:28:35 PM

And there you have it folks, the Eugene Parks Elections Act. Let me know if it ever replaces the Canada Elections Act.

Until then recall that, in the Canada Elections Act, there is no prohibition of voluntary work for a party, and that the transmission to the public of an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, a commentary or news is not considered election advertising.

Nobody has to declare anything in order to simply be an opinionated citizen. One only need register if one actually spends more that $500 on what the act actually considers to be "election advertising", per section 353(1).

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-21 2:57:47 PM

Eugene - your rebuttal is completely illogical and without any facticity. You do not seem to understand categorization, i.e., group or set theory. And, you don't understand Networks and the Internet.

1)Because a number of individuals link their individual blogs on the Internet, does not mean that they are Acting As A Group.

For example, I can find one site that lists many links for hotels, but that does not mean that this one site has all these hotels working as a single group under its authority.

I can find a single site that lists other sites for information about a specific disease. Again, that does not mean that these sites are, because they are all listed on yet another site, working as a group.

I can find one site that lists all the radio stations in Canada. That does not mean that, because they are listed on this one site, all these radio stations are working as a collective group!

2). Blogging Tories is an Internet Site that lists individual sites. That is NOT, NOT a group! Again- you don't seem to understand either Category/Set Theory or the Internet!

3)And, it is most certainly not working for the CPC. Because most, if not all, of the sites listed on Blogging Tories, are in favour of the CPC, does not mean that any or all of them are working for the CPC! That's a logical error.

4)They aren't raising money together for any political party.

Oh- but you've another logical fallacy. You know, if they want to raise money together for an annual barbecue somewhere in the world - they could do so..so, your dictum of 'don't raise money together' is invalid.

5) Your summary: either work as an individual, or as a group, or as part of a Party - shows your ignorance of the Internet process. Your two options - (the third 'part of a Party'- is actually 'part of a Unity/individual) - are invalid in our modern world. You are ignoring the electronic network of the Internet.

Internet networks aren't groups. They aren't individuals. They are - networks. I'd advise you to read up on the nature of Internet Networks. They are a 'different beastie'..and your statements about them show how you don't understand what's going on in the electronic world.

Again - an Internet Network is NOT a group. It's simply a site that lists like-minded sites. This site doesn't act as a Group; all the sites don't operate as a collective. The site acts as an information-site. Go do some reading.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-21 3:04:21 PM

Oh, hi, it's me again. Interestingly, on the matter of the interpretation of the phrase "third party", section 349 of the act says the following.

--------
349. The definitions in this section apply in this Part.

"election advertising" has the same meaning as in section 319.

"election advertising expense" means an expense incurred in relation to

(a) the production of an election advertising message; and

(b) the acquisition of the means of transmission to the public of an election advertising message.

"expenses" means

(a) amounts paid;

(b) liabilities incurred;

(d) amounts that represent the difference between an amount paid or a liability incurred for property and services, other than volunteer labour, and the commercial value of the property and services, when they are provided at less than their commercial value.

"group" means an unincorporated trade union, trade association or other group of persons acting together by mutual consent for a common purpose.

"third party" means a person or a group, other than a candidate, registered party or electoral district association of a registered party.
--------

In other words, persons *and* groups (and presumably networks too) of citizens are considered to be third parties by the Act.

It does seem to me that the civil service considers the politicians to be the second party, and the civil service itself, in the name of the state, as the first party. On the one hand, the best functioning modern democracies tend to work that way. On the other hand, so do some of the worst.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-21 3:41:01 PM

Yawn... I'm a designer of browers (you may be using it), digital broadcasting (you may watch it), browser toolbars (you may be running it) etc etc etc. I've been using the Internet and e-mail since nearly the very beginning. I understand Internet links.

Stephen Taylor is on record naming names of people who collaborated as a group.... and more.

Both the CPC and Stephen Taylor are on record as intending to use the Internet to promote the CPC and get Stephen Harper elected. Blogging Tories is on record as working directly and interactively with the CPC.... members (officially) of the same organization working directly together on the same stated project for the same stated goal as a group - duly on the record. It's called an organizational effort and is a lot more than just a hyperlink.

Hasn't Blogging Tories been publicly bragging so since the CPC convention :-o So, why the denial now???

Posted by: Eugene Parks | 2006-01-21 3:45:50 PM

Nope. Eugene - your 'explanation' won't work. Because you design websites doesn't mean you understand networking. You don't understand a collective as a network process.

1) Because an Internet site, made up of multiple links, focuses on a specific theme, i.e., Canadian Conservativism, doesn't mean that they are working FOR the CPC. Equally, a site (call it a superset) that lists multiple Liberal-friendly sites, is not necessarily working for the Liberal Party.

2) Because Stephen Taylor and the CPC are on record as desiring to use the Internet, does not mean that Blogging Tories, which is a listing-site on the Internet, is a political tool. The Liberal Website and the CPC WebSite are also on the Internet. OK?

3) Your problem is one of an invalid categorization of variables.

Because some members of a group of individuals are, as individuals, working in the CPC party, does not mean that a WebSite that lists all their websites, is a political agent. You can't merge the individuals with their websites, and you can't merge the individual websites..with a superset website.

For example, Jason Cherniak, that infamous and illogical Liberal supporter, has a website, where he expounds his support for Martin and the Liberals. Is his website thus an agent of the Liberal Party? No. Nor is any superset website that lists his as 'Liberal-Friendly Websites'. Same for all the other parties.

4)Equally, because a single individual, who has worked for a CPC member, has a website that promotes the CPC, does not mean that that website is part of the election infrastructure of the CPC.

If you go that route, then, every indivdual who has a website that promotes a particular political agenda and/or party, can be - according to you - seen as an agent of that party. That includes journalists, professors, and etc. You can't go that route, for that is effectively stating that IF you have a particular political philosophy, THEN, you are, if you express it on the Internet, an Agent Of That Party. Not true.

5) No - you don't understand networking. Because the 'nodes' (member sites) on a network are all focused on one particular theme (a political ideology, hotels, a disease) doesn't mean that they can be categorized as an 'organizational effort'. A network hyperlink is NOT an organization.

Try again.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-21 4:13:48 PM

One should also note that the Canada Elections Act, pursuant to which Eugene filed his original complaint, is not the ET Networking Act either.

The Act does not mention work (other than noting that voluntary labour is ok without accounting, and commercial services must be accounted for), nor does it mention networks (other than defining groups as part of third parties, and stating that doing stuff that isn't election advertising anyway is ok on the internet, as a clarification).

Based on all I've read above, there are three relevant situations:

(1) If "The Blogging Tories" engage in "election advertising" as defined by the act then they must register if they spend more than $500 and there is a limit of $3,000 per riding and $150,000 nation-wide.

(2) If "The Blogging Tories" provide the commercial value of property or services (other than volunteer labour, or the transmission to the public of an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, a commentary or news, or the transmission by an individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his or her personal political views), then the party must account for those expenses according to the act.

(3) Otherwise, the Canada Elections Act (you know, the one in effect on Monday), and John-Pierre Kingsley (you know, the chief electoral officer) have been clear, as I have documented at length above: the Blogging Tories aren't in violation of anything and they don't owe anyone anything.

My understanding is that the Blogging Tories have not triggered the antecedent clause for either situation 1 or 2, and that therefore situation 3 applies.

As I've mentioned above, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just trying to understand my duties and responsibilities as a citizen in this election. If anyone finds any misinterpretation in my understanding of the act, please let me know.

Otherwise, please understand that I am doing this solely as a public service now, because franky I'm rather disappointed by the degree to which Canada's citizens will go on about a matter governed by an act of parliament without paying any attention to what the act actually says.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-21 5:19:09 PM

Now Vitruius... your really did make me LOL. You must not understand what a browser really is, or digital broadcasting, toolbars, distributed websystems, or content distribution etc...

Now to the point at hand.

When a person starts naming names and organizations (not talking about hyperlinks here) what you have is a group as defined by the Canada Elections Act. Further, when both the group and the party are on record as working on the same project, with the same methods, interacting together, and the group and the party are officially one in the other, what you have is an organizational effort.

What does it take for a conservative to see that there is a group?

Could this be why Harper conservatives cannot demonstrate a vision of Canada that does not involve devolution of powers to individual units.... Harper conservatives just don't know a group when they see one.

Posted by: Eugene Parks | 2006-01-21 6:07:17 PM

Eugene- don't get into personal insults; that's an unprincipled and unethical tactic. Don't mock Vitruvius; his points are valid.

How does 'naming names and organizations' fulfil the definition of 'a group' as defined by the Canada Elections Act???

If a person names a website that provides a list of pro-Conservative blogs - and even if several individuals do this - this is NOT the definition of an organization!!!!!

An organization has an infrastructure ..of, guess what..organization. There's a hierarchical leadership, there are orders from this leadership, there's an agenda as defined by this leader, which must be followed by the workers..and so on. A website that lists all pro-conservative, or all pro-Liberal or all pro-flat earth blogs, is NOT AN ORGANIZATION!!!

Even if all the members of this hyperlink share the same ideology as, for example, a political party, that does NOT mean that they are working for that political party!!!

Using the same methods? What does that mean? What methods? The use of argument, of discussion, or analysis? Please explain.

How are they 'interacting together'? Please explain.

How are they 'officially one in the other'? Please explain.

Were the Swift Boat Veterans part of George Bush's election team - when they were debunking the lies of Kerry? No.

What you are missing, in your view, Mr. Parks, is the fact that the Internet has completely changed the way election campaigns are run. The old way, which used print, radio and television, was 'Top Down'. The political party provided its commentary, propaganda, rhetoric etc..and communicated it via those media - the mass media.
Quite obviously, it was felt that a wealthy party could 'swamp' the mass media - and restrictions were put into effect.

BUT - the communication infrastructure has changed in the last decade. It's the Internet - and this has moved communication out of the control and hands of the political party - and into the hands of the ordinary citizen. Now, for the first time, the citizen - who can be, themselves, an economist, a lawyer, a statistician and etc - can comment on political ideology. And, via the Internet, can communicate this ideology to others.

What you are trying to say - is that this communication, if it is ideologically similar to that of a political party, is actually part of that political party's election campaign.

No. It isn't. For the first time - the citizen is not just a passive recipient of political rhetoric. They can communicate, amongst themselves, to the whole internet world, and discuss these issues.

It's a different world, Mr. Park, and your view - that the discussions and public communication of these citizens is not to be permitted - is completely wrong.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-21 6:28:07 PM

Grasping Eugene...you're desperately grasping now. Your whole argument is based on the definition of The Blogging Tories as a group?

By your logic, each person who casts a vote for Conservatives in the election can be lumped together and classified as "a group working to get the Conservatives elected". Oh, the horror!

And it is certainly to the credit of the conservatives that they see everything through a prism of individuality. And once again, you do not address any of the rebuttal points put forth here...and don't think I didn't notice you chickened out of responding to my rebuttal.

Keep flapping Eugene...No matter who wins the election on Monday night, I'll still be a Blogging Tory, and you'll still be a petty agitator, glamouring for attention.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2006-01-21 6:33:26 PM

I'll take Mr. Parks at his word that he designs browsers and claims to understand networking. That said, he must either be quite unfamiliar with the notions of digital community or wilfully mendacious to further a personal agenda of political vengeance.

He tosses around notions of covert aid from a political party to create proxies, a concept that died with the Cold War and the reign of computing "big iron". The cost of entry into Internet publishing is so low and access to information so free that no one needs to actively enlist cyber 'provocateurs'. Plenty of people have ample opinions and face minimal obstacles in propagating them.

There is simply no way that Elections Canada can crack down on political bloggers, period. What sense would a ban on funding make when the price of publishing is a computer with a text editor and browser and a phoneline?! Legislate against people communing electronically? Recall the old New Yorker cartoon line. "In cyberspace no one knows you're a dog." Consider the reports of how successful the NSA and the FBI have been in keywording tracking of communications with real potential to harm a nation, much less make Liberals feel uncomfortable.

Collusion? It's called community! The Chinese Communist Party loathes the latter when it is manifested on the Internet and only their state's economic power gives them access to blunt instruments like traffic blocking and filtering. Mr. Parks, China is not our neighbour and it sure as hell is not our nation!

For all of his asserted knowledge of networks, Mr. Parks views the Internet through the filter of old telco notions of connectivity, that is, that one can impose order upon a network through its infrastructure. One leading expert in Internet law, Tim Denton authored a pioneering paper called "The Rise of the Stupid Network". The Internet gets intelligence from the data that flows through, quite unlike old switched networks. Similarly, digital communities need none of the infrastructure of pre-Internet political organization. The community rises and falls on the volume and quantity of information that is exchanged.

If one were to "ban" the Blogging Tories, they would simply arise as another community of interest, much like the Stonecutters easily morphed into the Fraternal Order of No Homers. Even Homer Simpson appreciated that!

In an earlier time, Mr. Parks' sensibilities might have made him an accomplished Chekist. His arguments here certainly do not make him the very model of a modern cybergeneral.

Posted by: Paul Canniff | 2006-01-21 7:07:00 PM

"He tosses around notions of covert aid from a political party to create proxies"

You bet… now you are catching on J It's called a quaisi-third party.. you know, like the liberals set up in Quebec to defend Canada during the last separation referendum. Except, with the Blogging Tories we have the CPC doing it to get them elected. Same tactic…

The question is… is there any more integrity in what the conservatives are doing through their quasi-third party arm.

The Canada Elections Act says if you are an individual then “fill your boats” and blog (my paraphrase). However, when a group you have to declare, when a party you have to declare. Stephen Taylor was proud to be a conservative member and the attack dog of the party just a few weeks ago…but why not today? He proudly declared it widely for how long and now… all of a sudden, he’s just one individual working for his own agenda.

Remember the background here and try not to be all-partisan: Blogging Tories has named names... and I don't mean hyperlinks... Stephen Taylor has named names, been to CPC political event after political event for months advertising and being endorsed... in his own works he is a member of the party, the attack dog of the party, receiving unique "news" stories from the party, connected to the party, working to elect the party, raised money for the party... all via blogging tories and visa versa.

It's the denial's that get yah.

Posted by: Eugene Parks | 2006-01-21 7:40:51 PM

Paul Caniff - you've analyzed it perfectly. Mr. Parks simply doesn't understand the nature of the electronic network.

As you point out - he thinks it operates like a 'linear communicative path' - acting on orders issued from a hierarchical authority. It doesn't.

Elections Canada cannot stop ordinary citizens from, for the first time, discussing, arguing and promoting, political ideologies.

This new 'people-power' will change the whole nature of political elections. People will not be as enslaved to Party Propaganda as they were - they can rapidly examine the veracity of the claims made by politicians; they can almost instantly rebut and publicize any false claims; they can argue and debate with others.

Witness what happened with the Liberal Party's malicious ads; it took minutes for them to be propagated on the web - and John Duffy's and Martin's claims that they weren't 'released' because they were on the Liberal Web Page and not in the MSM, shows how they misunderstand the nature of the Internet. As soon as they were public, they were released. And then - it took only a few hours for the public to start to laugh at them, make parodies and publicize those parodies...and criticize them. Before the Internet, this community of rebuttal, wouldn't have been public; its voice wouldn't have been heard.

This is a far more democratic process than the old linear type of communication. Elections Canada can't stop people from communicating.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-21 7:54:02 PM

Now, see, Eugene, you're making all the classic mistakes. Your complete misunderstanding of the way the Canda Elections Act relates to the Citizens of Canada, in groups or otherwise, is one thing, but by playing the ad hominem bishop move on my technocratic skills in the middle of a discussion by us citizens studying the implications of the Canada Elections Act on the situation in our election, you've just managed to sacrifice your queen, and, I'm afraid, unless I'm very much mistaken, it, sadly, looks like checkmate.

Because, you see, Eugene, not that it's relevant, but I learned to type on an IBM card punch programming an IBM 1800 (it only used about 4,000 square feet of floor space, and the power cable was as thick as your arm), in 1971. I've had email since 1974, I was on uucp net and UseNet in the 1980s and 90s (gosh how we all fondly recall the old can.politics newsgroup), and I wrote my first blog server software in 1998 when I first got a cable modem.

Megabits per second it suddenly was, I tell ya. It's quite fascinating really: in the late 70s I used 117.5 baud modems to program in APL via IBM Selectric typewriters (with a special type ball) on the Amdahl 470/V6 that the university had recently acquired. And let me tell you, it was quite a step up from the old IBM 360 model 67 we had become accustomed to, even though that latter machine was itself one of the experimental models with hardware support for virtual memory.

And now, 35 years after I started this exercise, I have for the last ten years been the principal software architect for engineering mathematics software that is used by thousands of safety systems engineers on six continents. On the Internet. Hosted in part in Canada. In our cities.

So you see, Eugene, by engaging in that gratuitous ad hominum, instead of discussing the Canada Elections Act and its relationship to the Blogging Tories, and, indeed, the rest of us common opinionated citizens, you've pretty much blown any further opportunity for arguing your case out your ass. If you'll pardon my language.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-21 8:12:50 PM

“This is a far more democratic process than the old linear type of communication. Elections Canada can't stop people from communicating.”

Elections Canada does not want to stop communicating (your anti-establishment paranoia is showing). It wants people to communicate more – who you are working with, what is the source of propaganda, and how much are you spending. Elections Canada wants disclosure.

If you do that, you will be fine - provided you have not over spent or over donated.

The question here is 1), only a few weeks ago, Blogging Tories was wildly bragging it was the attack dog of the conservative (among other things) working with collaborators to elect conservatives. Now today, the claim is entirely the opposite. And 2), the CPC two-way relationship with core individuals and their collaborative work.

There are months of statements everywhere.

Simple solution… stick with the original story… declare the expenses as a CPC campaign expense.

Besides, the gig is up... no one can ever again take blogging tories as a media outlet as nearly everyone is a CPC member. Legitimate press don't hold membership if political party... some will not even vote so as not to bias their own feelings.

Posted by: Eugene Parks | 2006-01-21 8:36:45 PM

With respect Vitruvius, I've worked with all the stuff you mentioned and on a substantially larger scale. The largest system was only a billion US... getting to be small potatoes nowadays I admit.. but it was fun... and I still know what I'm talking about.

With respect.

Eugene Parks

PS re APL, I remember it well, using it to AxBxC for alternate performance characteristics for supercomputers... those were the days!

Posted by: Eugene Parks | 2006-01-21 8:47:43 PM

It's too late Eugene, you can't change your stripes now. Talk to me in ten years. In the interim, think about these:

"An attitude of permanent indignation signifies great mental poverty. Politics compels its votaries to take that line and you can see their minds growing more impoverished every day, from one burst of righteous indignation to the next." --Valery

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." --Bertrand Russell

"A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." --Winston Churchill

"It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships that they give credibility to the opinions they attack." --Voltaire

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-21 8:57:46 PM

I've read Bertrand Russell - he is a poor philosopher by today's standards, most of his Boolean approach to philosophy doesn't hold much water beyond its usefulness within the Boolean world of computers.

Churchill was a genius - I consider his points.

... as for your teacher attitude, me thinks you do not understand the tools you are using. A man that tells me bits and bytes means he understands networks and organizations means he is missing the point.

I believe the quote from Valery is what is called "projection".

But now we have gotten personal... just the way you started it all... so the loop is done. You have chosen your poison.

The real point of this threat is fight hard but fight far and openly… the CPC has not been honest with what it is doing and where it is coming from.

This is who you are:

http://www.harperstiestousa.org/

I think a prime minister of Canada should want to be Canadian.

Eugene Parks... 9 generations Canadian and proud of it.

Posted by: Eguene Parks | 2006-01-21 9:20:45 PM

Again, Eugene - you've set up a straw man argument. You are setting up a 'fourth term' in the argument, by changing the meaning of 'communication'.

Don't get ad hominem. I'm not paranoid; I'm not anti-or -pro establishment. That's irrelevant.

I'm saying that Elections Canada has NO business being involved in internet communications. And your statement that bloggers should be 'informing Elections Canada of all that you do' is NOT an act of communication! You are changing the meaning of the term 'communication'.

Police state surveillance, where the Authorities Must Be Told Everything - is NOT communication! OK?

It is not the business of gov't to insist on being told who a blogger is working with (usually, no-one);

What is the source of 'propaganda'????? Do you mean what is their ideological source?? I prefer Aristotle; I'm also quite keen on Popper and Peirce and so on. Is that any business of Elections Canada?? No, it isn't.

Spending? On the Internet??? Get with it. It costs zilch. If you have a computer and the internet hook-up - that's it. And, that is none of Elections Canada's business. OK?

Again - you simply, like Martin, refuse to see reality. Blogs are NOT, are NOT, are NOT election sites! They are the platforms of private individuals - and, by means of the Internet - they can reach everywhere. The old linear top-down Shannon style communication system is gone. Citizens can now talk about ideology, openly, can argue about theories, about politicians, can correct false statements made by politicians or by the media. The old linear style of communication, where all the individual could do was to listen to what they were told - is over.

An individual blogger, whose blog is on the link of Blogging Tories can indeed say that they are the 'attack dog of the conservatives' and so on. They can say whatever they want. First - if you are a 'conservative' does not mean you are the CPC. They are NOT employees of the CPC. They can most certainly, write and argue and work on their own, to promote conservative ideology. You cannot, ever, try to stop that.

What CPC two-way relationship? Please explain.

No way - a blogger's expenses have nothing to do with the CPC party. They are private and the agenda to set up a blog, devoted to conservative ideology, or to discuss issues related to conservative themes..or other issues..is NOT part of an organization. It is individual; it is an individual intention and your attempt to say that IF an individual sets up and writes conservative themes on a blog, THEN, they are part of a CPC organization - is bunk.

You are rejecting and denying the right and actions of individualism.

And remember - there aren't any costs to blogging!!! Get it?

What do you mean by saying that 'no-one can ever take blogging tories as a media outlet'? What does that mean? It isn't a media outlet. The title of Blogging Tories is the name of a website that lists items from pro-conservative blogs. That's all. No- not all are CPC members; Kate of SDA isn't; and, I don't know, or care, about the others.

You simply don't understand networking and the complete change in communication systems that has developed with the rise of the Internet!

Again - Elections Canada (and you) have no say in the blogs and websites of individuals.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-21 9:21:02 PM

I'm sorry Eugene, the rules say you can't play the ancestral rook move when you're in check, you're king is still exposed.

I suppose that I should mention for the record that Mr. Park's recollection of APL (A Programming Language, Ken Iverson, IBM, 1962) is also incorrect, the correct form is A+.xB, where A and B are matrices, and + and x are binary functions.

His lack of understanding, given his claims, of APL's dot operator, which takes two functions as arguments, and is central to APL's role in the history of functional programming, only further serves to question his credibility.

You may be interested to know that Ken Iverson was born in Camrose, Alberta, in 1920. He invented APL in 1962 to provide the notation for a mathematical description of the IBM 360 instruction set. He won the Turing Award (the Nobel Prize of Computing Science), in 1979, for his "Notation as a Tool of Thought" paper, which I particularly enjoyed. (I also happen to have a signed copy of Iverson's APL 360 book, 1962, somewhere in the basement, courtesy of my masters thesis adviser.)

Look, Eugene, I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm just trying to teach you a lesson. You're in over your head, lad. Go ahead, swim for shore, we'll respect you more, not less.

And the next time you decide you get your shorts in a knot, try to line up your ducks in a row first, please. It will save us all a lot of time. We don't mind helping you grow up, just, please, grow up.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-21 9:42:12 PM

And a further comment, Mr. Parks, on your last sentence, which took me a bit to figure out...about 'legitimate press' not holding membership in a political party..and some not voting 'so as not to bias their own feelings'.

I'm astonished. Are you actually promoting the disenfranchisement of citizens in Canada? If you are a journalist, particularly a political journalist, then, you 'ought not to vote'??
Is that what you are promoting? That's offensive.

A journalist or reporter, both, have the intellectual capacity to come to conclusions. A reporter may indeed, if they are professional, try to report all facets of an issue. That is their job. BUT - this individual, as a rational member of the human species, does have the capacity, and right - to think, analyze and come to a conclusion. And - to vote on that conclusion.

A journalist has the task of analyzing 'facts' and presenting conclusions (unlike the reporter). This obviously means selecting one conclusion versus another conclusion. Does this mean bias? No. It means a rational JUDGMENT. Are you also denying this individual the right to vote?

Are you proposing that all people who write professionally, ..about political issues..whether as reporters, as analysts, as authors of books..ought to be encouraged Not To Vote???

Remarkable.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-21 9:45:20 PM

ET,

You may or may not be aware, that Don Newman of the CBC voluntarily does not vote so as to try to remain as biased as possible. Don't be silly, I'm not suggesting all reporters do that... but contrary to Blogging Tories membership in the CPC once in a while pretense to be media, the real media will no longer take him seriously.

Posted by: Eugene Parks | 2006-01-21 9:58:07 PM

Vitruvis, I will match your techno geekness and raise you one... at this moment in the world there are probably 20, possibly 30 million people using software I played a significant role in designing and developing... you may be using one of those products right now.

Posted by: Eguene Parks | 2006-01-21 10:02:46 PM

"The question here is 1), only a few weeks ago, Blogging Tories was wildly bragging it was the attack dog of the conservative (among other things) working with collaborators to elect conservatives. Now today, the claim is entirely the opposite. And 2), the CPC two-way relationship with core individuals and their collaborative work.

There are months of statements everywhere."

Odd that you didn't actually provide any links.

Are you certain this isn't MWW in drag?

Posted by: Kate | 2006-01-21 10:23:46 PM

There are months of statements everywhere."

Odd that you didn't actually provide any links.

Are you certain this isn't MWW in drag?

Posted by: Kate | 2006-01-21 10:24:15 PM

Now to the topic at hand...

ET is concerned that Elections Canada have NO say in Internet communication... like it or not it does. You can blog all you want, if you don't organize.

Blogging Tories actually collaborate offline with several people, including the CPC, and a dozen people launched the electronic version of the medium. Then the content channels were setup. Some blogs were actually merged. The purpose was stated from the very start to elect conservatives and was done with CPC members. The CPC stated its need for a content channel, which is what it asked me to set up. I didn't and Blogging Tories took it from there.... and it became as claimed, the attack dog of the CPC.

A lot of you are just small 'b' blogging tories... but there is a central hub that was and is a group effort.

Gosh… ya know it, I know it, they claimed it, so watcha denying it for???

Or don't you like the fact that the whole thing roped *you* in and *you* didn't know it. Maybe you feel like those Quebecers who are made that those quasi-third party advertising firms might have influenced them.That is what quasi-third party officially unofficial parts of political organization do... ya know.

Is what Blogging Tores did legal, or is it ethical, or just something tastful… I’m not saying. I’m asking and I’m saying someone should take a good look at what actually happened and sort it out.

Posted by: Eugene Parks | 2006-01-21 10:25:04 PM

You know, thinking more about this - Eugene, you should probably consider amending your complaint to add the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - to date, they're the only ones who have ever paid me so much as a penny for my pro-Conservative opinions.

Posted by: Kate | 2006-01-21 10:27:36 PM

And yet, pace all that hi-fi stuff, Eugene, you still don't know anything about the Canada Elections Act.

What a senseless waste of human life.

It's sad, really, isn't it.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-21 10:27:52 PM

Kate McMillan?

Is that really you?

Are you still recommending that the government bring back residential schools for aboriginals?

BTW, you are named by Stephen Taylor as one of the original collaborators (pre-electronic form) for Blogging Tories. Are you aware he names you?

Posted by: Eguene Parks | 2006-01-21 10:29:14 PM

Oh, goodie, now we're mixing up Residential Schools and the Canada Elections Act, are we Eugene?

Did I just get caught up in some sort of Twighlight Zone Time Warp thingamajiggy, or am I just having fun playing shelty to a lamb on a fine winter Saturday evening? I report, you decide.

Meanwhile, on the background matter of civics, on Monday I urge y'all to vote for us, the citizens of Canada, not for those who would corrupt the apparatchiki in the name of oligarchy power.

There. Are we havin' fun now?

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-01-21 10:44:12 PM

"BTW, you are named by Stephen Taylor as one of the original collaborators (pre-electronic form) for Blogging Tories. Are you aware he names you?"

We own majority shares in http://www.bonsaikitten.com, too.

Any other questions?

Posted by: Kate | 2006-01-21 11:19:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Eugene Parks responds...

TrackBack

Comments