Muzzled Canadian Scientists Can Now Speak Freely With Public (thestar.com) 197
Layzej writes: Over the last 10 years, policies were put in place to prevent Canadian scientists from freely discussing taxpayer-funded science with the public. "media relations contacts" were enlisted to monitor and record interactions with the press. Interviews and often the questions to be asked were vetted ahead of time, and responses given by scientists frequently monitored or prohibited. Nature, one of the world's top science journals, called the policy a "Byzantine approach to the press, prioritizing message control and showing little understanding of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge."
The new government in Canada is lifting these restrictions. Scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were told Thursday they can now speak to the media. In a statement on Friday afternoon, Navdeep Bains, Canada's new minister of innovation, science and economic development said "Our government values science and will treat scientists with respect. This is why government scientists and experts will be able to speak freely about their work to the media and the public."
The new government in Canada is lifting these restrictions. Scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were told Thursday they can now speak to the media. In a statement on Friday afternoon, Navdeep Bains, Canada's new minister of innovation, science and economic development said "Our government values science and will treat scientists with respect. This is why government scientists and experts will be able to speak freely about their work to the media and the public."
Deja vu (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the frozen Tundra was a real life example.
Scientists must really be on to something if they aren't allowed to talk about it.
Oh... Canada.
Re: Deja vu (Score:5, Informative)
Another Canadian here. The above poster is an arse. The Canadian government under Harper muzzled scientists, literally sending scientists out with political minders to conferences. Above poster is clearly a bitter Tory looking to blame someone else for his party's defeat.
Re: (Score:3)
Harper was Canada's "Bush"; although not the overt imbecile that Bush was/is.
But Harper - like Bush - did more to erode the sovereignty and security of his nation than any other so-called 'leader'.
Re: Deja vu (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to admit, I've been completely cynical about the country going from "conservative for conservative's sake, even when it flies in the face of logic" to "let's try new things, damn the expenses!" leadership -- but so far, the Liberals' actual moves have really impressed me; IMO they've been doing everything right. We'll see if that extends to some degree of fiscal responsibility -- that's going to be a thorny one -- and the TPP.
The one thing Justin has going for him is that he had to experience his father. There was a great documentary done a number of years back -- if it's at all factual, Justin won't be quick to repeat the mistakes of Pierre. He not only appears to have learned how things work from him, but also what not to do to mess up a country. We'll see if that lasts through an entire term.
Re: Deja vu (Score:4, Insightful)
you've made a reasonable argument in a reasonable tone
He didn't. His 'reasonable argument' consisted of ad hominems ('their leader is politically young'), general poisoning the well tactics ('his father is bad, thus he must be bad'), FUD and generally baseless statements ('civil liberties are walking dead', 'mark my words' and pretty much everything else in the post).
It adds nothing of substance to the discussion and does so in an alarmist and offensive way. It deserves a solid -1.
If you disagree, please point out the well-reasoned bits I've overlooked. Either that or accept that you were ever so gently sucking his dick (I take it you have no issue with this 'reasonable tone').
Re: Deja vu (Score:5, Insightful)
See, here's the thing. Canada had the FLQ crisis, and yes, Trudeau called out the military.
But you know what he did when the crisis was over? He sent the military back to base. No USAPATRIOT act, no Homeland Security, no Transportation Safety Authority, no profiling of Quebecois, no 'terrorist threat level' colour coded chart, nothing. The problem got sorted out, and we, as a country, moved on.
Re: (Score:2)
Our freedom and way of life is not afforded to us by the mere fact that we live next to you. If that were the case, explain Mexico.
You win today. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...what are Meems? Capital M, so I guess it's a person? Who is Meems? And what social media did they own?
And how is "out" government spending insane amounts of money when they've only been here for a week?
ONE WEEK!!!
Speaking of syndromes, you appear to have Illiterate Dipshit Mouth Diarrhea Syndrome. Why don't you ask Jason Kenney out on a date, it would do both of you some good.
Re: (Score:2)
...what are Meems? Capital M, so I guess it's a person? Who is Meems? And what social media did they own?
And how is "out" government spending insane amounts of money when they've only been here for a week?
ONE WEEK!!!
All you have to do is look to America. Within a day after the election in 2008, The magick Negro president was responsible for World War 1 and 2, the dot-com bubble, Mexicans with diseases coming into America, and every known problem in the world.
And that damn itchy spot on my big toe - Thanks Obama!
Re: Deja vu (Score:4, Insightful)
So you think muzzling scientists is a good idea? Please explain why.
Re: (Score:2)
Oversight on research? From who, morons like you who think the Earth is 6000 years old? All the data is publicly available, it's religionist idiots like you who refuse to believe in reality when it's inconvenient or against your religious worldview.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Irony. (Score:2)
no critical thinking
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian here, Harper had nothing bad going on. He just got ousted by social media Meems
SRSLY? Tell me deaer Canadian., are you in favor of squashing dissent? When the gummint wants your opinion, they will tell you what it is?
Or is all of the evidence of that muzzling just some sort of lbersocialcommunistcal hogwash?
There is a real problem when you muzzle scientists. And that is that despite youre idealism, despite what you know as God's unvarnished truth, and your higher cause in making sure that no one hears the devil - who is conveniently anyone who doesn't share your politics - the la
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's $616 billion, not trillion. And of course, CAD, not USD.
Per capita, it's still small compared to the USA's debt of $18 trillion USD. [forbes.com]
But I do agree with your other points.
Scientists and media both happy (Score:5, Insightful)
I strongly disagree with the Conservative Party of Canada. Don't forget, these aren't the "Progressive Conservatives" that won votes on policy, these are the hard right Reformers who campaign on fear and divisiveness.
Re:Scientists and media both happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds suspiciously like the beginnings of a totalitarian regime. Probably why the liberals got a 'surprise' win
Actually, in the previous election, Harper Regime told the national media that they were limited to five (5!) [thestar.com] questions [theglobeandmail.com] per day.
In that election, the media barely squawked about it, and the Globe and Mail ("Canada's National Newspaper") even endorsed the party that told them that!
Worse, Canadians gave them a majority win putting them into a far, far stronger position than they'd been in prior to them being found in Contempt of Parliament - which triggered that election.
I guess my point is that not only sho
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't disagree with you with respect to conservatives, particularly in the US.
But if you think the liberal parties haven't been doing the exact same thing, particularly in the US, you are out of your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scientists and media both happy (Score:5, Informative)
You would have liked Harpers small government. Things like shrinking Revenue Canada so all it can investigate is left wing non-profits, shrinking Election Canada so it can't even tell people where to vote accurately, little well encourage them, shrinking the military so all the moneys spent on killing brown people and buying the F35, a plane that's useless for the arctic, but no money for the injured vets returning. A huge propaganda department so continuous bombardment of ads telling us how great Harpers Government (not the Government of Canada) is doing and of course spying on the citizens as they might have the wrong politics.
Yes a small government that is big enough to go after its opponents and get their message out.
Oh also a government that can inherit a surplus and run a $56 billion deficit while telling us how fiscally responsible they are. At least they didn't waste those $2 billion on those welfare queen veterans and finally balanced the budget after 7 years of deficits.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the talking points, those are pretty good. Of course one has to remember that Revenue Canada bloated in size. And those invesigations into "left wing non-profits" was because in Canada we have electioneering laws which say you can't use more than 10% of your funds in political acitivism. Several were caught saying on TV and the print media that they used more, that some were getting special funding from the US which is...illegal. And of strange, I have yet to find out where people couldn't figure
Re: (Score:2)
All the non-profits accept foreign funding and engage in political activism, the difference was who had the ear of the PMO.
There were lots of problems around here with people being sent to wrong polling stations, mostly corrected by the ones who put a lot of effort into it, probably not corrected by ones who gave up. Then there were the other screw ups. My personal story was going to the Elections Canada web site to make sure my wife and I were still registered and it reporting we were. Then our voter cards
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I would much rather have less constraints put on me by a SMALL government instead of a huge one that will double our debt in a four year period, that doesn't bring back jobs to this country ...
The rate of debt accumulation goes up during Republican administrations and down during Democratic ones ever since Carter. David Brin has an article about the second derivative of the debt: So Do Outcomes Matter More than Rhetoric? [blogspot.com]
The Republicans cut taxes but they're too chicken to cut spending significantly.
Also, Obama has presided over the longest uninterrupted period of job growth ever.
Re: (Score:2)
"Focus on how a well a country did"
It didn't do well, though it's true that overall Harper was good at pushing more and more wealth upwards and spinning it as a gain for the average working Canadian.
Re: (Score:2)
It's people like you fucking this country over. Harper was simply amazing. He was leading us out of debt and into growth for 8 bloody years and to thank him you guys oust him??? It's incredibly frustrating how people like you poInt out flaws that don't exist. Focus on how a well a country did, not random shit. The liberals have just as many bad points. Also fuck you.
What "flaws that don't exist"? The comment was about scientist's being muzzled, how did that not exist??
As for the economy part of the reason Canada was doing better is we weren't hit as hard by the '08 meltdown because our banking sector was more restricted. The Conservatives were in the process of eliminating those restrictions before '08 happened and everyone saw what a cataclysmically bad idea it was. Recently the Conservatives bet on oil and failed to diversify the economy, now that prices are down the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian science (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yay! (Score:4, Interesting)
As a Canadian I must say.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you must also be given to the voters who finally were able to rally and kick out the Conservatives.
Too often we do not feel our votes make a difference but it did make one here.
Now the only question to us is, how far will these changes go? We'll see over time.
Re: (Score:3)
The main reason you can put them out of power is that you use paper and pencil voting. If you convert to e-voting, your ability to annoy business interests by voting them out of power will be, um, problematic. As they kinda own those systems.
Stick with the paper.
Forcing philosophy through example... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Government doesn't work - it CAN'T WORK!"
"What about all those countries where it mostly does and, um, all of human history, eh?"
"Oh really? Sheesh! Listen - I'll just do a little governing here, and governing there - and BAM - doesn't work anymore. See - governing ruins everything!"
"Doesn't that just mean YOU ruin everything?"
"Wait - wait - I'll prove it some more. Give me more time and I'll REALLY prove it!"
I don't understand.... what was preventing them... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing happened in the US under George W Bush. NASA scientists were forbidden to talk to the media except through spin-doctors, as he wanted to censor them saying that Global Warming was indeed real.
Is that why NASA stated that 2005 was the warmest on record [nasa.gov]? Why 2004 was announced as the 4th warmest [nasa.gov]? Why NASA scientists were talking about global warming at 2003 conferences [nasa.gov]? Would you like a few thousand more instances where NASA scientists spoke up about global warming and claimed it was real and happening throughout the Bush Administration?
Partisan hack BasilBrush spotted...
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorant cunt.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work... [ucsusa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't even fucking read. I said:
"NASA scientists were forbidden to talk to the media except through spin-doctors"
Which is EXACTLY what happened to Hansen. Regardless of whether he went on to disobey.
Ignorant cunt.
Hames Hansen... (Score:2)
James Hansen - head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 1981-2013
In 2007, Hansen alleged that in 2005 NASA administrators had attempted to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change.[107][108] Hansen said that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. NASA responded that its policies are similar to those of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone was preventing them conversing at the bus stop. Does that mean stopping them talking to the public on mass via the press isn't a problem?
Re: (Score:2)
One degree of separation (Score:4, Insightful)
A friend of my wife was personally effected by all of this. She researches epidemics and was going to present a paper [the details of which I will not specify]. However, all appearances at conferences for any reason had to be cleared by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). As there was an election taking place, the PMO couldn't be bothered reviewing anything, they were too busy with important stuff (you know, not epidemics). So she didn't get to go.
I can't imagine a more dystopian fiction. At least in 1984 they had a reason to spy on everyone, it was part of their basic philosophy. But in this case, the only reason for any of this was Harper's deathly fear of bad press. So everyone had to follow the Party Line, including people who's only affiliation with the party was getting funding from the government.
And, in the end, *that* was what led to their downfall. The constant repression of information and dissent, especially within his own party, was eventually too much for anyone to take. The mechanism they put in place to protect the PM from the planet was ultimately the very device that destroyed them.
This is not a "conservative" problem. Conservatives have been excellent communicators overall. Hell, Churchill *lived* for the debate, and I strongly suspect he deliberately let people talk about anything just so he could off a clever quip in response. This was an anomaly. Let's hope it does not happen again.
Re:One degree of separation (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a conservative thing, it is an authoritarian thing. Authoritarians can show up under any parties banner though in democracies they do seem to be on the right side of the spectrum as often as not.
Harper was such an authoritarian that he didn't even let his own party members talk so we had an election where the Conservative candidate wouldn't even show up to town hall type all candidate meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, it's the most free nation on Earth (Score:2)
Restore Dr. Patricia Sutherland (Score:2)
While you're at it, Canada, let her resume her research in Baffin Island.
She was fired because of the complaints of some thin-skinned lowlings who don't have what it takes to work with someone like her.
If you have to scold her, if you have to tell her to chill out, do so. But don't shut down scientific research just because of stupid personal problems.
Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was _no_ "muzzle" (Score:2)
Take _any_ institution that has employees, or limit it to say, IBM or NASA. Any media queries to each of those comes through a media relations department. The Canadian government doesn't really have one at the scientific levels so the responsibility is for supervisors at those levels to play the role. Was it "muzzling" for a person to need to let their supervisors (and on up the chain) know that they would be speaking to media? No. Simple reason: the publication of what those persons say, is taken to r
Re:What information was muzzled? (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CBC News ? really ? This must be the most politically biased media in the country... There is no reason for this company to be public, if not being a cash-cow for "artists" and unions...
Hyperbole AND off topic - good show! So you don't trust the CBC, eh? Then how about Global News?
http://globalnews.ca/news/2005043/what-scientists-being-muzzled-looks-like-in-the-real-world/
Or CTV?
http://www.ctvnews.ca/global-research-panel-says-feds-muzzle-scientists-1.770203
x0ra ? really ? This must be the most politically biased member of Slashdot... There is no reason for this member to be here, if not being an apologist shill for Conservatives and corporations...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Whether or not muzzling information was good or not was muzzled...
This is an easy one. Muzzling information = always bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not muzzling information was good or not was muzzled...
This is an easy one. Muzzling information = always bad.
You got that right. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I remember is ex-fisheries scientists talking about being muzzled over things like where the cod breed and some discoveries about lobster breeding that some American scientists ended up getting credit for. There was also the destruction of the fisheries libraries.
Basically scientists muzzled just so Harper could practice his control fetish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What information was muzzled? (Score:5, Informative)
What information was muzzled during the last 10 years?
Here are a few examples:
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/when-science-goes-silent/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-scientists-push-for-protection-from-political-interference/article24473222/
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Canadians love the idea of things warming up. They won't have to travel to Hawaii, Florida, Arizona, etc nearly as often.
Re: (Score:3)
Where do you get the impression that "scientists" don't respect the public? Where do you get the idea that "scientists" are a monolithic entity with a shared viewpoint on the American public?
PS: As a non-scientist member of the American public, I have no respect for the American public. (As the saying goes, a person is smart... people are stupid).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You like making up stories to incite people to hate their neighbors, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're a useful idiot. What you don't realise is that libertarianism is a philosophy intended to help the corporations oppress you. It's not for your benefit. But you're so stupid, you believe their stories.
Re: (Score:2)
What you don't realise is that libertarianism is a philosophy intended to help the corporations oppress you.
Oh no! What can I possibly do to protect myself from them? Wait... I can just choose not to buy their products.
Hmm. Should I choose for myself or elect a government overlord to choose for me in return for my money and my obedience? It's hard to decide. Can you tell me more about these corporate bogeymen?
Re: (Score:2)
You have no choice where there's a monopoly or a cartel. Which is the ultimate endpoint if there's not a government to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no choice where there's a monopoly or a cartel.
I could still choose to keep my money in my pocket and do without whatever they're selling.
When a guy chooses not to pay for what government is "offering", the government sends armed men to his house to violently force him to pay.
Which is the ultimate endpoint if there's not a government to stop it.
That's an argument for a very small, very limited government -- just big enough to prevent total monopolies. Much, much less government that we currently have.
Re: (Score:2)
Respect isn't about "evidence". People have a right to make their own choices, even if "evidence" says they'd be better off as serfs or slaves or obedient subjects or whatever other plan you have for them.
Re: (Score:2)
We're none of those things. You're a paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
What if "evidence" showed that we'd be better off? Should people be made into serfs or subjects if "evidence" showed it was helpful? Or shouldn't they?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell the tax collectors that.
Re:Do Canadian Scientists respect the public? (Score:5, Informative)
This is just the start of the undoing of the dark ages. It'll take years to restore everything, assuming the Liberals actually do try to restore everything. This first move was by far the easiest and is universally approved.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wonder if the muzzling will begin again, once the scientists start disagreeing with a liberal party policy? If, for example, it turns out that gun control doesn't actually do anything to stop crime - and that enforcement of it, much like with drugs, is basically wasted money - will the liberal party go, "Oh... I guess we were wrong about that"?
It's all sunshine and roses right now, but the scientists aren't actually saying anything that goes against the liberal party ideology at the moment. The re
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wonder if the muzzling will begin again, once the scientists start disagreeing with a liberal party policy? If, for example, it turns out that gun control doesn't actually do anything to stop crime - and that enforcement of it, much like with drugs, is basically wasted money - will the liberal party go, "Oh... I guess we were wrong about that"?
It's all sunshine and roses right now, but the scientists aren't actually saying anything that goes against the liberal party ideology at the moment. The real test of them putting their money where their mouth is, would be when they continue to support open discourse and dialogue even when it disagrees with what the party believes.
Whoa up there Tex! Put your gun back in your holster you are talkin' to the sheriff 'a Rock Ridge.
Firstly gun control has nothing to do with crime prevention. What you are suggesting is in essence removing the all license plates from cars when you really think about what you are saying here. In Canada we simply require that a license to purchase firearms is required the same way a drivers license is required to drive cars. You commit a crime with a gun and you lose your license to carry them plain and simp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Australian firearms restrictions saved lives (Score:2)
For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.
The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Implementation might be a whole other story. I've yet to see it pointed out anywhere that for the last decade, the people who have been enforcing this stupidity were by and large not Conservative politicians, but management within the government. Those people are still there. The people with morals and backbone are gone or got pushed into positions where they dislike for Conservative policies wouldn't be an issue (i.e. where they'd have no p
Re: (Score:2)
As a Canadian born and raised, I'd have to agree.
Harper was clearly trying to align Canada with Christianity and from a nationalist standpoint the anglo-sphere end of things (i.e. his personal background rather than represent all Canadians). This is the same xenophobic nationalist racist BS that some Conservatives in the US push and now even some conservatives under Cameron in the UK. (while they simultaneously complain about Islamic extremists that try the same BS)
I'm not religious but my mom is. She's a
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like something a Klan member might say. The Klan uses different slurs against different groups, but otherwise the message is about the same.
It's an illegal fire hazard to stack up that much straw in here sir.
To put it in a way that your warped political view can conceive of:
The Harper Regime told tax payer funded scientists that they could not discuss the results of their tax payer funded studies with ... tax payers.
Because the government wants their agenda pushed through despite little things like "facts". Sort of a power grab.
Now does it make sense? You and your "gummint == bad" crowd should be all over this as it's a clearly non-partisan i
Re: (Score:2)
How does that justify slurring religious people?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought. Use your own brain to figure out what is and isn't misinformation.
Muzzling a certain form of information because it might cause you (or others) to form an opinion you don't like is not a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone can be said to come "from Syriza".
I'd say that Alexis Tsipras [wikipedia.org] did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NRA, gun manufacturer's and gun shop owners thank you for your ignorant, idiotic gullibility.... and the extra profit that brought to them by you and other really stupid people who believed their bullshit sales pitch. When it comes to you guys, PT Barnum said one was born every minute
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theguardian.com/us-... [theguardian.com]
FWIW, Australian gun law is no more than a gun grab...
Re: (Score:2)
It's no surprise that someone as stupid as you is also a gun nut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)