Tory Story

This is the dumbest thing ever to come out of the election campaign. So far.

Elections Canada has been asked to investigate the Conservatives after allegations that the party is overseeing a group that operates partisan on-line web logs.

Canada's election watchdog received a complaint Tuesday morning from a disaffected party member who claims the Tories tried to sway political opinion in cyberspace in the leadup to, and during, the election by setting up the popular "Blogging Tories" website.

The site appears to be a coalition of like-minded individuals who have met in cyberspace to share their political opinions and express their frustrations with Paul Martin's Liberals.

But a Victoria, man, Eugene Parks, and Toronto Tory dissident Carole Jamieson allege the venture may be in contravention of the Elections Act and third-party financing laws. They say it may have "unduly influenced the election coverage and potentially the outcome of this campaign."

"They're using a third-party agency to get elected," said Parks, a former Conservative supporter who now says he is an opponent. "It's pure hypocrisy."

Blogging Tories is an aggregator of like-minded cons. Kind of like a virtual community bulletin board. This sort of partisan aggregator appears to be unique to the Canadian blogosphere. But it isn't the only one -- although, by my calculation, it was the first. We also have the Blogging Dippers and Liblogs -- as well as Progressive Bloggers and even Non-Partisan Bloggers.

But the Liberal war room is so clueless and so desperate, that it  issued a Fact Check on the CanWest story which, in my opinion and that of others, wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

The Conservative Party may be in contravention of the Canada Elections Act and third-party financing laws over the "Blogging Tories" website.

On January 18, 2006 two former Conservatives, Eugene Parks and Carole Jamieson, asked the Chief Electoral Officer to investigate a potential breech of Canada's election laws by the Conservative Party of Canada.

They say that they have passed on evidence to the Chief Electoral Officer that the "Blogging Tories" website is an initiative of the Conservative party, rather than of individual Canadians.

There are strict spending limits for political parties during election campaigns.  And there are also limits on how much other groups (third parties) can spend during elections.  Under the third-party financing legislation, it is illegal for a third-party to evade election spending limits by splitting itself into two or more groups.

Stephen Harper opposes third party spending limits.  He has challenged this legislation at the Supreme Court, and has said that if elected, he will repeal the legislation that limits how much third parties - such as lobby groups - can spend during elections.

Perhaps Mr. Harper should practice what he preaches.

Needless to say, the Blogging Tories have risen to the occasion. Consider this  or this.

What I find most amusing about this tin hat conspiracy theory is that it hinges on the words of two people that have a grudge with the Conservative Party. What I don’t find amusing is that there is going to be an investigation into my right to free speech and everyone gets to pay for it. The blogsphere has been populated with so-called conservatives from the begining because of fashist progressive moonbat titheads like Carol and Eugene. I know you think the rednecks aren’t literate - but surprise!

Why would the ‘blogsphere’ be rife with conservative minded thinkers? The unbiased media does so well in portraying Conservatives as demons why would we want our voices to be heard?

Carole Jamieson can kiss my ass.

(More nasty stuff about the alleged offenders from one of their formerly own here.)

All that said, I am with Robert McClelland on this:

But this is troubling for one simple reason. The right will not learn from this. They will not, even as they’re getting their faces rubbed in their own odious tactics, reflect upon it and come to the realization that when you continuously swiftboat people, sooner or later you’re going to get swiftboated yourself.

No, the right will not learn this lesson but will instead be looking to hurl these same exact accusations against the Blogging Liberals and Blogging Dippers. Don’t believe it? They’re already laying the groundwork.

Sometimes it's like kindergarten here in bloggoland.

The Liberals are nuts to take this seriously.

 

Comments

[Jay Currie]

Happy as I am to refer to "the left", McClelland, as usual firmly grasps the wrong end of the stick. There are many of us in the conservative interest who hope Jean-Pierre Kingsley explains, with all the patience he is capable of, that blog aggregators are not covered by the Elections Act unless they are funded directly as a campaign expense by one or the other of the parties.

That said, there are lots of us who will go much further an refuse to support any restriction on the freedom of speech of any individual or group. Which is why we think election results should be published as they happen, third party gag laws are improper and polling information should be published election eve.

[Richard Stevens]

I'm surprised that Tony Ianno's tinkering with Elecions Canada's plan to allow voting booths at University of Toronto dorms hasn't gotten more attention. In the case that Antonia has presented we have citizens presenting an obviously biased point of view - but one that is perfectly legal as it is a citizens right to free speach. There are NDPers, Communists and probably facists who are running similar websites, but again fear-mongers rule the day.

The Ianno example is a direct act attempting to limit and silence the most democratic form of free speach - voting! Now I understand that there are some legal issues, but coming from a party that has said it wants to encourage youth voting this is highly hypocritical. Could it be that Ianno is afraid that in a riding he won by only 800 seats last election he might be beaten by a possible 40,000 additional voters? Youth who are likely to vote NDP or Green?

This is a travesty of the democratic process and there has been almost NO coverage.

[Joe Clark]

In what way does displaying an RSS feed on a blog site constitute any kind of "spending"?

Do the complainants even understand the concept?

[Ruth]

I have to disagree with McClelland. What's more, I think he sounds a little self-righteous. It's all very well for him to say the left would never react this way, but the blogging community of which he is a part wasn't the one being complained about, was it?

[PhantomObserver]

The plain fact of the matter is, *none* of the brain trusts of the three major campaigns truly understand the nature of the Canadian blogosphere.

Scott Feschuk comes closest, but he's only a speechwriter and so doesn't count. The two official Tory flogs do get the occasional snippet (the main one gets photoblogging well enough), but on the whole they're not all that indistinguishable from their media room / press release archives. And perhaps the NDP was wise not to have a national-level blog.

This perhaps explains the Liberal's ignorant commentary: you always fear what you don't understand, and the primal instinct is to attack what you fear.

What's really laughable is that there are dozens of people working the grassroots for the Liberals who have blogs of their own and who could have told the brain trust exactly who the BTers were. And their own lawyers could have told them the merits (or lack thereof) of the Elections Canada complaint. I suppose, though, that desperation makes for deaf ears.

[Robert McClelland]

"The Liberals are nuts to take this seriously."

Actually they aren't. Unless you're well versed in the dynamics of the blogosphere, there's no way you'd be able to tell how ridiculous the story is. As the administrator of the Blogging Dippers I get tons of email asking me why this or that isn't being talked about on the BD site because most people simply don't have a firm understanding of blogs let alone blog aggregators.

Besides, considering the Conservatives have used every bit of gibberish Kinsella and Copps have flung around, it's only fair that the Liberals are now using Jamieson's gibberish.

Regardless of that though, this is still nothing more than an interparty squabble and the cons should leave the left out of this. Unless of course, they want us to provide reams of specious evidence--of the sort they favour--in order to make this claim more credible.

[Classic]

_Isn't "formally" making such a silly allegation(s) at this point during the election campaign the true case of attempting [to borrow the phrase] undue influence upon the coverage, and potentially the outcome of, this very campaign?

[arthurdecco]

"Unless of course, they want us to provide reams of specious evidence--of the sort they favour--in order to make this claim more credible."

Posted by: Robert McClelland

Great line. Wonderful post, Robert.

[PhantomObserver]

Robert:

If it were a Liberal or progressive blogger trying to poke fun at the BTers, it would not have been that big a deal.

However, it is a news release put out by a national electoral campaign -- with obviously no understanding of the blogosphere and how it works -- that's trying to bring attention to the incident and spin it into an attack on Stephen Harper. The existence of this release is what makes it news, and that's what makes the Liberals fair game.

[BBS]

H/T to Jay Currie, Scott Tribe and others who realize the true implications of this action.

This is an attempt to stifle the free speech of a group. I suspect that this is the first of many attacks on the blogosphere from numerous avenues. If blogs, blogging and it's outgrowths are to grow and mature in Canada, there will be times when we all have to step off our partisan soapboxes and respond accordingly.

I have a great deal of respect for those that have already stepped up to that challenge with some foresight and without the gratuitous asides.

[Robert McClelland]

No, Jay, you're the one missing the big picture. A lot of Blogging Tories gave Jamieson a rough going last year with their smearjob on her for doing nothing more than speaking out against the leadership of Stephen Harper. The lied and lied and lied some more about her and now she's getting even. And I say good for her.

And as I said, none of those rubes will even think twice about how they treat other people in the future even though they're getting their faces rubbed in their own crap.

This is not a free speech issue since Elections Canada hasn't issued any kind of a ruling or even begun an investigation. The only thing that's occured is a complaint has been filed and you rubes are over reacting because you don't understand the difference between a complaint, an investigation and a ruling. Only the latter matters when it comes to free speech.

No Currie, free speech doesn't enter into this. It's nothing more than well deserved payback.

[Jay Currie]

Two things: first, through the miracle of the Internet you can read Steve Taylor's (co-founder of the Blogging Tories) response http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000526.html.

Robert...far be it from me to mention to a chap of such leftish emminence as yourself the words, "chilling effect" or "slap suit". Those of us who actually believe in the concept of freedom of speech take "complaints" every bit as seriously as we do "rulings" because the cost is in defending against the complaint, not kowtowing to the ruling.

[Mach Stelmacher]

So?

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=04559d57-858c-457b-9fad-d01cae37b727

If the story is gone, it is cached here

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:37K2Nj_gJEEJ:www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html%3Fid%3D04559d57-858c-457b-9fad-d01cae37b727++seniors+bill+liberals&hl=en

[PhantomObserver]

Robert:

I, for one, am not reacting to the complaint. I'm reacting to the official Liberal Party response, because it shows a) their ignorance of the blogosphere and b)their desperation at trying to find a Harper attack that will actually work.

[Dean]

This is a dumb complaint. As noted, the Blogging Tories are simply an aggregate of individuals as opposed to some sort of

But let's face it - like everything else on the Internet, blogs are probably going to go more corporate and we're going to see a lot more astroturfing. How hard would it be for every party to have five blog people who each set up and run a bunch of blogs pretending to be someone else - a 25-year old male party worker becomes a 50 year old lifelong female X supporter who has gotten so gosh-darned disgusted with the antics of X that she's thrown her support behind party Y. Then the party worker morphs into a 30-year old mother of two who blogs on childcare issues and tells us why Party Y's child care policies are the best in the land. Then a 19-year old student. Then a recent user of the health care system. Then a farmer. Throw in some more profiles, lots of trolling and you have a full day right there. All you have to do is make sure your creative writing is up to speed, that you know a little about the type of persona you're adopting and that you don't use the same lines twice. And voila! Grassroots support!

Blogs are as democratic as you can get. However, they share a couple of basic problems of the Internet - A) fact or bullshit, it spreads just as fast and B) just like chat, you don't know who is behind that curtain.

[ferrethouse]

The problem with Robert McClelland is that he thinks he doesn't do it. He thinks his accussations and name calling are all fine and dandy and that only people on the right of the blogosphere are guilty.

[Alan]

I am sorta with Dean. I think in a fairly banal sense it is true that sooner or later a line will be crossed and the self-proclaimed disorganized amateur status of bloggers will serve as no defence. I really don't think we are at this point with the BTers but to not appreciate the way that the medium is prone to being co-opted is pretty naive.

But remember that when the next minority falls in 2007, the medium will likely have shifted again and aggregation will be so '05. The real trouble Elections Canada faces then or now is getting their hands on the blob of jello that is pajamastan.

[harvard_grad99]

Ms. Zerbisias:

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=l&board=37138445&tid=cpresstorontoshootings&sid=37138445&mid=4011

I am curious as to your opinions on the above blog. I agree with the bulk of your observations of election blogs. However, do you think there may be a bigger concern here, over and above the election which after all is a temporal thing?

[Eugene Parks]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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