1. Why does a Saskatchewan Crown Corporation supply cable television to Hospital Rooms in Newfoundland and Labrador when we have very expensive fibre optic capabilities? Sick people recovering in our hospitals are paying the Government of Saskatchewan money!
2. Outside of Russell Wangersky - why are no journalists absolutely demolishing the deal between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Roebothan McKay Marshall to sue tobacco companies?
3. What qualifications in the oil and gas sector does Miss Elizabeth Matthews have to sit as Vice-chair of the CNLOPB? Why did she cross the floor to join Danny Williams and his team and did she bring any information from the Liberals over with her?
4. If selling energy assets to a Quebec firm is such a good news story (as claimed in the Telegram today by Nalcor spokesperson) why did Sue's Blog have to bring it to the attention of the people in our province?
5. Why are we saving Nova Scotia from its energy problems when we have to pay for it, they compete for industry with us, and they currently have better economic stats that matter. (employment numbers, population)
6. Why is the government not delivering full disclosure of the Emera deal to the people before it is done as promised by Danny Williams?
7. Why does Kathy Dunderdale believe that as an unelected Premier - she should be completing resource deals - when she and most of her MHA's demanded that Grimes not do deals for that reason?
8.Where does John Hickey sit on the request from the NunatuKavut people regarding Muskrat Falls environmental hearings? Does he represent any of these peoples?
9. Why did Danny Williams not secure redress on the Upper Churchill contract either before he quit or before he struck Emera deal - as promised?
10. Is Danny Williams having any influence directly or indirectly on the government and decisions being made - now that he has left office? If so what decisions?
Showing posts with label sue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sue. Show all posts
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Sunday, February 18, 2007
The Odd Couple of Democracy - Danny Williams and Ross Reid
When the Premier appeared on Open-Line with Randy Simms on the issue of suing private citizens he made some interesting comments - similar to the day before when he threatened individuals at a media scrum. Here's one of the statements Williams made while answering a question from Randy Simms.
This is interesting don't you think? The Premier says people who act within the law should be watched! Because when you go very very very close to the line but do not cross - you are exercising your rights to speak freely - and we should not be subject to intimidation including this threat of being "watched". What does that mean Premier?
If I am driving 100 km/h in a 100 km/h zone - I am very very very close to going over the speed limit - but I am acting within the law and won't get a warning ticket for it. If I have just turned 19 years old and visit a pub for a drink - I am very very very close to being 18 but I am not warned or charged for that. If I am within 1 cm of a no trespass area - I am very very very close to crossing the line but I won't be issued a warning for it.
Big Brother (Dan) is watching - very good explain that to us Premier - especially to the three private citizens you have singled out.
Now let's look at the irony of another situation within the mix of this administration. Ross Reid - who up until a short while ago was a public servant - having been the Deputy Minister to the Premier and another department. Ross is a long time Tory and a PC MP - St. John's East under the Mulroney administration. Reid was one of the casualties of the "boot the Tories out" after Mulroney and Campbell.
Ross was my federal member in 1988 - and he was a good fellow - did a significant job for the district and was committed to hard hit areas like Bell Island and worked very well with the Provincial Liberal Rep. Jim Walsh. There's no doubt the election defeat in 1993 to Bonnie Hickey was a blow and no doubt he took it hard. I also vividly remember the truly "personal attacks" launched by people during that campaign. He was not being called to task on policy or his work in the district but he was being called to task for Mulroney and his own personal lifestyle. It was disgusting and there were people like me who were not shy in speaking out against this type of attack. How quickly he must forget.
In either case Ross left the province and went on to work in countries with new democracies. He was there to assist in the establishment and maintenance of these new democracies. One such group was the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs - they claim to do the following:
Ross also sits on the Board of IMPACS a group which says this:
This fellow is supposed to be a key advisor to the Premier - as a public servant and now as the Chair of the PC election campaign for October 2007.
Based on the Premier's threats to named and unnamed private citizens - either Ross has no sway with the Premier on these issues or he does not believe what he appears to stand for. How can you sit back and condone these threats by the Premier? How can you support the premise of the people wanting full accountability and openness in government - when to ask questions about the fibre-optic deal is somehow a full affront on the Premier and his buddies? How did you sit back during the attack on NAPE and CUPE members?
What's up Ross?
"There's an awful lot of other people who are going very very very close to the line on what they're doing to destroy peoples' reputations - and ya know they need to be watched..."
This is interesting don't you think? The Premier says people who act within the law should be watched! Because when you go very very very close to the line but do not cross - you are exercising your rights to speak freely - and we should not be subject to intimidation including this threat of being "watched". What does that mean Premier?
If I am driving 100 km/h in a 100 km/h zone - I am very very very close to going over the speed limit - but I am acting within the law and won't get a warning ticket for it. If I have just turned 19 years old and visit a pub for a drink - I am very very very close to being 18 but I am not warned or charged for that. If I am within 1 cm of a no trespass area - I am very very very close to crossing the line but I won't be issued a warning for it.
Big Brother (Dan) is watching - very good explain that to us Premier - especially to the three private citizens you have singled out.
Now let's look at the irony of another situation within the mix of this administration. Ross Reid - who up until a short while ago was a public servant - having been the Deputy Minister to the Premier and another department. Ross is a long time Tory and a PC MP - St. John's East under the Mulroney administration. Reid was one of the casualties of the "boot the Tories out" after Mulroney and Campbell.
Ross was my federal member in 1988 - and he was a good fellow - did a significant job for the district and was committed to hard hit areas like Bell Island and worked very well with the Provincial Liberal Rep. Jim Walsh. There's no doubt the election defeat in 1993 to Bonnie Hickey was a blow and no doubt he took it hard. I also vividly remember the truly "personal attacks" launched by people during that campaign. He was not being called to task on policy or his work in the district but he was being called to task for Mulroney and his own personal lifestyle. It was disgusting and there were people like me who were not shy in speaking out against this type of attack. How quickly he must forget.
In either case Ross left the province and went on to work in countries with new democracies. He was there to assist in the establishment and maintenance of these new democracies. One such group was the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs - they claim to do the following:
The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) is a nonprofit organization working to strengthen and expand democracy worldwide. Calling on a global network of volunteer experts, NDI provides practical assistance to civic and political leaders advancing democratic values, practices and institutions. NDI works with democrats in every region of the world to build political and civic organizations, safeguard elections, and to promote citizen participation, openness and accountability in government.
Ross also sits on the Board of IMPACS a group which says this:
The Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society (IMPACS) is a registered not-for-profit charitable organization committed to strengthening the voice and profile of civil society organizations in Canada and internationally.
This fellow is supposed to be a key advisor to the Premier - as a public servant and now as the Chair of the PC election campaign for October 2007.
Based on the Premier's threats to named and unnamed private citizens - either Ross has no sway with the Premier on these issues or he does not believe what he appears to stand for. How can you sit back and condone these threats by the Premier? How can you support the premise of the people wanting full accountability and openness in government - when to ask questions about the fibre-optic deal is somehow a full affront on the Premier and his buddies? How did you sit back during the attack on NAPE and CUPE members?
What's up Ross?
Saturday, February 17, 2007
I am not a "Crook"
Turning the tables. This particular strategy is vulgar and I would like to know whose mind created it. The injured party here - is the population - not John or any other MHA.
As I write today - the arrogance of John Hickey amazes me. He double-billed - and he wants to sue a constituent and the Premier is warning others. Hickey did not pay interest on the overpayment - he did not cover the costs of justice resources to investigate - but he wants what? To clear his name. Let's help him.
Here's what the Auditor General said:
Introduction
Section 15(1) of the requires the Auditor General to report to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council instances the Auditor General becomes aware of during the course of an audit which may involve improper retention or misappropriation of public money or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act.
A matter of this nature came to my attention during my review of the
appropriateness of constituency allowance expenditures claimed by
Members of the House of Assembly and the adequacy of supporting
documentation.
As outlined by the Commission of Internal Economy, [of the House of Assembly]“Each Member is entitled to an accountable constituency allowance. This allowance is for the payment of expenditures incurred in the performance of constituency business and may cover such items as office rental, equipment, supplies, secretarial and other support services, information material such as newspapers, advertising, purchase of flags,pins, etc..”
Findings
On 8 January 2007, I reported through the Minister of Finance, to the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council, that a review of expenditures at the
House of Assembly identified 20 instances totalling $3,770 where
Mr. John Hickey, M.H.A. submitted claims and received reimbursement
for items that had already been claimed by him and reimbursed to him.
These double billings were claimed by Mr. Hickey on Members
Constituency Expense Claim forms signed and filed by him with the
Office of the Clerk of the House of Assembly during the fiscal years 2004,
2005 and 2006. The attached schedule provides details on the double
billings by Mr. Hickey.
Recommendation
I recommended that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council refer the matter
of Mr. Hickey's double billings for fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006 to the
Department of Justice.
If you would like to look at each of the instances please PRESS HERE
Sue's Blog does not have a copy of the Police Investigation Results and I have not seen any media produce it. I have not seen anything from the Crown Prosecutors Office and I have not seen any of the media produce it.
I have heard the Premier - John Hickey and certain media say "cleared of any wrongdoing" - and I understand from them that no charges will be laid. I have not seen or heard John Hickey say he did not double-bill and John Hickey has said he has paid back the over-payments resulting from double-billing.
There John your name is cleared - looks normal to me! Right?
As I write today - the arrogance of John Hickey amazes me. He double-billed - and he wants to sue a constituent and the Premier is warning others. Hickey did not pay interest on the overpayment - he did not cover the costs of justice resources to investigate - but he wants what? To clear his name. Let's help him.
Here's what the Auditor General said:
8 January 2007
The Honourable Harvey Hodder, M.H.A.
Speaker House of Assembly
Dear Sir:
In accordance with Section 12(1) of the Auditor General Act, I respectfully submit herewith, for transmission to the House of Assembly, a report regarding the identification of double billings by Mr. John Hickey, M.H.A. totalling $3,770 relating to fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN L. NOSEWORTHY, CA
Auditor General
Introduction
Section 15(1) of the requires the Auditor General to report to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council instances the Auditor General becomes aware of during the course of an audit which may involve improper retention or misappropriation of public money or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another Act.
A matter of this nature came to my attention during my review of the
appropriateness of constituency allowance expenditures claimed by
Members of the House of Assembly and the adequacy of supporting
documentation.
As outlined by the Commission of Internal Economy, [of the House of Assembly]“Each Member is entitled to an accountable constituency allowance. This allowance is for the payment of expenditures incurred in the performance of constituency business and may cover such items as office rental, equipment, supplies, secretarial and other support services, information material such as newspapers, advertising, purchase of flags,pins, etc..”
Findings
On 8 January 2007, I reported through the Minister of Finance, to the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council, that a review of expenditures at the
House of Assembly identified 20 instances totalling $3,770 where
Mr. John Hickey, M.H.A. submitted claims and received reimbursement
for items that had already been claimed by him and reimbursed to him.
These double billings were claimed by Mr. Hickey on Members
Constituency Expense Claim forms signed and filed by him with the
Office of the Clerk of the House of Assembly during the fiscal years 2004,
2005 and 2006. The attached schedule provides details on the double
billings by Mr. Hickey.
Recommendation
I recommended that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council refer the matter
of Mr. Hickey's double billings for fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006 to the
Department of Justice.
If you would like to look at each of the instances please PRESS HERE
Sue's Blog does not have a copy of the Police Investigation Results and I have not seen any media produce it. I have not seen anything from the Crown Prosecutors Office and I have not seen any of the media produce it.
I have heard the Premier - John Hickey and certain media say "cleared of any wrongdoing" - and I understand from them that no charges will be laid. I have not seen or heard John Hickey say he did not double-bill and John Hickey has said he has paid back the over-payments resulting from double-billing.
There John your name is cleared - looks normal to me! Right?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Why did the Premier threaten Private Citizens?
You see the Premier would like a few of us to change our commentary. Let's first deal with what Williams was trying to do. I can say that because when he mentioned me yesterday - one of three private citizens named - there was no stated reason?
I was not contacted by any lawyer - government MHA or the Premier to remove or alter a post on the blog or anything I said on the air.
His purpose therefore was to threaten - to warn - but why?
Well if one is critical of the government or Members of the House of Assembly - they might be named publicly like Sue was. Therefore it could only be seen as an intimidation tactic.
The Premier in his musings about besmirching peoples characters should be more concerned by his own actions. The naming of individuals yesterday was one example but the Premier has not shied away going at other people when it suits him.
For instance when the Premier was freely condemning Max Ruelokke's ability to represent the province properly on the CNLOPB - he routinely ignored the process of the appointment and forced Ruelokke to go to court in order to be appointed.
He had no problem putting Rulokke's life on hold - and then had no problem besmirching the judge.
Then there was the whole incident with his son downtown - as NUPGE puts it - the Premier owed the civil service an apology for even implying that the union might have had something to do with it. As it turns out the Unions had nothing to do with the incident.
Here's a part of a story on the site of National Union of Public and General Employees.
Did the Premier in that case attempt to besmirch the characters of thousands of people?
There was also the incident with an employee of the Government (at the time) - that he accused of hacking into the Opposition's (him at the time) computers. The RNC found nothing criminal there either.
The rules of this "democracy" are being made by Mr. Williams - and I guess we as people can tell him - it's not his democracy - it's our democracy - and we will defend it.
It was inappropriate for Williams to name private citizens for no reason other than to threaten - he his trying to intimidate.
The question is why?
Why Premier is it so important to shut me up? Lower Churchill? Fishery? Outmigration? Wind energy? Metis? Mistakes in the additional agreement? Why?
Where was the Premier when the moratorium was called on the fishery? Who will fight for them? When Hydro was being sold out from under us? Who will fight for them?
The Premier is a rookie with respect to public discussion on public policy - when compared with those he names. You were not really that loud when the government awarded Cable Atlantic a contract (under Tobin) or when you purchased that piece of land for the golf course (under Tobin) no all that was neat and tidy.
The Premier didn't mind taking a piece out of the fella who wanted to be paid for his role in the sale of his company (Cable Atlantic) - he won his court case too didn't he - as did Max Ruelokke
The Premier has no problem telling us what will happen before the RNC have finished investigating a matter - does he? Does he have a problem telling them? There's a chance the odd one of them is going to hear his statements on the air.
Here's a quote from the Premier's News Release:
Then Judge Halley calls the delay tactics used by the provincial government on Ruelokke's appointment "reprehensible" - the Premier says the Judge had a bad day. Remember now - he is an officer of the court and was the Premier when the Crown was defending that action.
Here's the quote:
You said of Ruelokke who won his case:
And as for women - the Premier is gaining a reputation:
Joyce Hancock?
Beth Marshall?
Sue Kelland-Dyer?
What do they have in common?
All strong women! All women the Premier has singled out in one way or another.
The Premier is also continually alluding to what Lorraine Michael will do or say on one position or another - and also propping her up (as if she needs his help) using her to take smacks at Gerry Reid and the official opposition.
His public support of Kathie Goudie versus John Hickey.(What's the difference?)
The Premier said on Open-Line today:
"But you can't allow malicious people to tell untruths and destroy the reputations of good honest law-abiding people on open-lines."
Who?
The Premier said on Open-Line today:
"There's an awful lot of other people who are going very very very close to the line on what they're doing to destroy peoples' reputations - and ya know they need to be watched -
because if they're going to be there and their gonna try and get political gain on the basis of taking someones good character and someones good reputation down - they deserve to be accountable in a court - and a judge will decide."
Who?
Based on the fact that you also said on Open-Line today:
"...but I can tell you and I said it yesterday and I'll say it again - if Roger Grimes or anybody else goes after reputations of public officials - and they are telling untruths and they are telling incorrects incorrect things and they are not they are telling lies about people and destroying their reputations - they have a right to be sued and the people that want to should sue them and hold them accountable."
I must be on the "watch" list.
Now how will I be watched?
Am I being watched now?
Who is watching me?
What are they watching for?
How long will I remain on the "watch" list?
Will I be notified if and when I am removed from the "watch" list?
For a complete transcript of the Premier's Statements today on Open-Line
PRESS HERE.
and finally - once and for all - you do get paid...we pay you and as for his further statement that:
What does this mean Premier?
The Premier works and he is paid a salary - he says I give it to charities which in his words means he works for nothing. Interesting!
How is it that we have come to know that Premier Williams donates his salary to charity? Did somebody else expose this - or was it him? It was him! Perhaps it would have been better to give (because he can) quietly. If for no other reason so people should not feel more indebted to his public service than that of others - because he "works for nothing"? The Premier expresses - every time there is a criticism of him - in a somewhat frustrated tone - that he donates his salary. Why is he saying this? Why does he keep saying things like "I don't need this" - or "Dean MacDonald doesn't need this" - is it to purchase exemption from criticism? If not why? I ask the reader to objectively answer these questions.
I was not contacted by any lawyer - government MHA or the Premier to remove or alter a post on the blog or anything I said on the air.
His purpose therefore was to threaten - to warn - but why?
Well if one is critical of the government or Members of the House of Assembly - they might be named publicly like Sue was. Therefore it could only be seen as an intimidation tactic.
The Premier in his musings about besmirching peoples characters should be more concerned by his own actions. The naming of individuals yesterday was one example but the Premier has not shied away going at other people when it suits him.
For instance when the Premier was freely condemning Max Ruelokke's ability to represent the province properly on the CNLOPB - he routinely ignored the process of the appointment and forced Ruelokke to go to court in order to be appointed.
He had no problem putting Rulokke's life on hold - and then had no problem besmirching the judge.
Then there was the whole incident with his son downtown - as NUPGE puts it - the Premier owed the civil service an apology for even implying that the union might have had something to do with it. As it turns out the Unions had nothing to do with the incident.
Here's a part of a story on the site of National Union of Public and General Employees.
Evidence given in a St. John's court on Thursday indicated that the labour movement had nothing to do with the late-night assault on his son near the city's waterfront.
Without any evidence to back his claims, the hot-tempered premier went on television in March 2004 to suggest that unions had targeted his son in retaliation for his Tory government's anti-worker budget, which outlined plans to wipe out 4,000 public sector jobs across the province.
Public sector workers were on the verge of striking at the time and Williams threatened to keep them out "until the cows come home" if any connection between the incident and his son was established.
Did the Premier in that case attempt to besmirch the characters of thousands of people?
There was also the incident with an employee of the Government (at the time) - that he accused of hacking into the Opposition's (him at the time) computers. The RNC found nothing criminal there either.
The rules of this "democracy" are being made by Mr. Williams - and I guess we as people can tell him - it's not his democracy - it's our democracy - and we will defend it.
It was inappropriate for Williams to name private citizens for no reason other than to threaten - he his trying to intimidate.
The question is why?
Why Premier is it so important to shut me up? Lower Churchill? Fishery? Outmigration? Wind energy? Metis? Mistakes in the additional agreement? Why?
Where was the Premier when the moratorium was called on the fishery? Who will fight for them? When Hydro was being sold out from under us? Who will fight for them?
The Premier is a rookie with respect to public discussion on public policy - when compared with those he names. You were not really that loud when the government awarded Cable Atlantic a contract (under Tobin) or when you purchased that piece of land for the golf course (under Tobin) no all that was neat and tidy.
The Premier didn't mind taking a piece out of the fella who wanted to be paid for his role in the sale of his company (Cable Atlantic) - he won his court case too didn't he - as did Max Ruelokke
The Premier has no problem telling us what will happen before the RNC have finished investigating a matter - does he? Does he have a problem telling them? There's a chance the odd one of them is going to hear his statements on the air.
Here's a quote from the Premier's News Release:
"I am so pleased to welcome Minister Hickey back into Cabinet," said Premier Williams. "Effective immediately Minister Hickey will resume his full Cabinet portfolio and related responsibilities. I regret that he had to step aside last week, but under the circumstances it was the prudent thing to do. However, I reviewed the circumstances surrounding the Auditor General's findings into some double billing, and I am confident that there was no intentional wrong doing. As such, I am pleased that Minister Hickey is back where he belongs."
Then Judge Halley calls the delay tactics used by the provincial government on Ruelokke's appointment "reprehensible" - the Premier says the Judge had a bad day. Remember now - he is an officer of the court and was the Premier when the Crown was defending that action.
Here's the quote:
"We all get up on the wrong side of the bed. I have good days and I have bad days and perhaps that was a day when he felt a little more zealous than he normally would feel,"...
You said of Ruelokke who won his case:
"You know, Mr. Ruelokke had been kind of in the papers, in everybody's face on this particular one, in order to express his viewpoint," Williams said. "It might be just better if he just kept his head down and let the process run its proper legal course."
And as for women - the Premier is gaining a reputation:
Joyce Hancock?
Beth Marshall?
Sue Kelland-Dyer?
What do they have in common?
All strong women! All women the Premier has singled out in one way or another.
The Premier is also continually alluding to what Lorraine Michael will do or say on one position or another - and also propping her up (as if she needs his help) using her to take smacks at Gerry Reid and the official opposition.
His public support of Kathie Goudie versus John Hickey.(What's the difference?)
The Premier said on Open-Line today:
"But you can't allow malicious people to tell untruths and destroy the reputations of good honest law-abiding people on open-lines."
Who?
The Premier said on Open-Line today:
"There's an awful lot of other people who are going very very very close to the line on what they're doing to destroy peoples' reputations - and ya know they need to be watched -
because if they're going to be there and their gonna try and get political gain on the basis of taking someones good character and someones good reputation down - they deserve to be accountable in a court - and a judge will decide."
Who?
Based on the fact that you also said on Open-Line today:
"...but I can tell you and I said it yesterday and I'll say it again - if Roger Grimes or anybody else goes after reputations of public officials - and they are telling untruths and they are telling incorrects incorrect things and they are not they are telling lies about people and destroying their reputations - they have a right to be sued and the people that want to should sue them and hold them accountable."
I must be on the "watch" list.
Now how will I be watched?
Am I being watched now?
Who is watching me?
What are they watching for?
How long will I remain on the "watch" list?
Will I be notified if and when I am removed from the "watch" list?
For a complete transcript of the Premier's Statements today on Open-Line
PRESS HERE.
and finally - once and for all - you do get paid...we pay you and as for his further statement that:
"I work for nothing - I donate my salary"
What does this mean Premier?
The Premier works and he is paid a salary - he says I give it to charities which in his words means he works for nothing. Interesting!
How is it that we have come to know that Premier Williams donates his salary to charity? Did somebody else expose this - or was it him? It was him! Perhaps it would have been better to give (because he can) quietly. If for no other reason so people should not feel more indebted to his public service than that of others - because he "works for nothing"? The Premier expresses - every time there is a criticism of him - in a somewhat frustrated tone - that he donates his salary. Why is he saying this? Why does he keep saying things like "I don't need this" - or "Dean MacDonald doesn't need this" - is it to purchase exemption from criticism? If not why? I ask the reader to objectively answer these questions.
Lloyd's Limerick Land
Another Reader gets Poetic
EMP weighs in on the Premier's Open-Line rant...
Sue , you invited anyone who wished to "poetically" vent political frustrations to do so. This wouldn't qualify as poetry but I did vent a little.Here it is ;
EMP weighs in on the Premier's Open-Line rant...
Sue , you invited anyone who wished to "poetically" vent political frustrations to do so. This wouldn't qualify as poetry but I did vent a little.Here it is ;
It's evident now
Why, in the great house,
Each member settles down
Like a quiet little mouse.
We all heard Danny
On open line to-day
What he'd do to anyone
Who gets in his way.
The threats and the scolding
The rant and the roar
He'd take us mighty fast
To the court room floor.
Most of us now are too darned
scared
To even have our say
Danny thinks we have no right
To criticize "his" way.
So come all you good people
And listen to me
Don't let Danny Williams
Put that muzzle on "WE".
Yearning for Cross Examination!!!
Danny Williams - Open-line - February 14-07
Randy:
We're feeling I think - that what your saying is that you can't besmirch anybodies reputation - we have a moving target when it comes to defining what's libelous or slanderous or scandalous or whatever - and you know I'd rather that we erred on the side of - let's have a reputation or two muddied rather than have free speech in any way curbed and your commentary leaves the impression that - there's a real threat to free speech in loading up every MHA with a lawyer.
Danny:
Well first of all - I just wanna for the for the record - so so that we're very clear - John Hickey is the IEC will pay John Hickey's legal fees - but John Hickey is not going to the IEC - John Hickey is gonna pay his own legal fees. So just for the record so that that is very clear - I just want to make that straight off the top. Now secondly your comment on - let's maybe you know I I can't remember your word there Randy might a been smear couple of reputations - (Randy jumps in)
Randy:
Well now you know maybe we'd besmirch a reputation or two - (Danny jumps in)
Danny:
What about if it was yours? (Randy says "same thing") what about - what about if Roger Grimes came on the air and said ah Randy you're a criminal - you've deliberately mislead the people - you've deliberately misappropriated funds - you've deliberately done something that's criminal therefore you ah by your own deliberate actions are a criminal. How would you feel about that?
Randy:
I'd sue him!
Danny:
(giggling) That's all I need to know. That's all I need to know - and that's exactly the situation - (Randy jumps in)
Randy:
Yeah but but but hold on hold on hold on hold on - I'm gonna tell you it's gonna be a lot easier and a lot more comfortable to do that if my employer has said to me that it really doesn't matter Randy - you can have a lawyer whenever you want here - you can go with like a loaded gun and anybody who speaks ill of you - you can always threaten with a lawsuit. That to me curbs free speech - that's more dangerous than if my reputation gets besmirched - because as a public figure somebody says I'm a crook.
Danny:
Let me ask you another question then - so you're an open-line host you're a moderator on open-line and Roger Grimes phones up and says Randy - some of the things you've said over the last couple of days - boy you're a criminal - ahh you've deliberately done something here - you've deliberately mislead people - you've done something that's criminally wrong - you're a criminal - and he accuses you while you're an open-line host - in your capacity as an open-line host - would VOCM defend you?
Randy:
I would think - (Danny bullies in) there ya go - there's your answer again now - (Randy fights back)
Randy:
Yeah but hold on now - hold on now - I would think but only from the perspective of this - if there was some element of that that was going to impact upon this company - like for example I have no doubt that government should protect it's Ministers - you should you know the IEC should be up there all bats swinging if somebody - if I sued John Hickey or if I sued you - or something you know - they should be there in the course of your duties but you know - we're public figures - every single one of us - like it or not - so if somebody says you know listen - somebody comes on the air today for example Premier - and here's what scares me in this kind of action - somebody comes on the air and says - you know what Randy - the whole friggin lot of them - their all a bunch of crooks bye. Now come on - we know what that person is saying and reputations are not falling apart because of that - is it...
Danny:
But Randy Randy look from my perspective - with a statement like that I'm one of those crooks. I've spent 57 years of my life building my reputation as a lawyer as a businessperson and as a community volunteer - I've here - I work for nothing - I donate my salary - I have people who are coming out saying that because my salary is donated to a foundation I'm getting tax benefits from it - nothing is further from the truth because I actually not only donate my salary I donate the tax deduction as well - so 100% of my money is going to charities - so if people come out and start to tag politicians generally as being crooks you know that's an irresponsible statement - there has to be some limits - there has to be some controls - and when you get somebody who knows better who's a former Premier of a province and says that someone deliberately ahh entered into a criminal action - that's a pretty serious piece of business. And you said to me in the beginning if someone called you a criminal - you'd sue em - and if you said something in your capacity as moderator of that show - that VOCM would support ya. But I'm telling you first of all - ya know - John Hickey is going it alone - John Hickey knows he's got a strong opinion here - he knows he's got a very strong case - and he will be proceeding against Roger Grimes. (Randy tried to say something - the Premier bullied over him) people have no license to come on and completely destroy reputations. Look you know - open-lines are free speaks - they're wonderful vehicles - they get public opinion out - we get debate - I've learned lots of things from open-lines - I've heard your ??? callers phone in and suggest things that are wise wonderful things and I agree with all that - but you can't allow malicious people to tell untruths and destroy the reputations of good honest law-abiding people on open-lines. That that's my point simply. So you know just so the public knows it - they won't be be paying for any lawsuit against Roger Grimes - but I can tell you and I said it yesterday and I'll say it again - if Roger Grimes or anybody else goes after reputations of public officials - and they are telling untruths and they are telling incorrects incorrect things and they are not they are telling lies about people and destroying their reputations - they have a right to be sued and the people that want to should sue them and hold them accountable.
Randy:
Where do we draw the line between legitimate political criticism and disagreement and I'll say passionate debate - where do we draw the line between that and someones interpretation that my reputation has now been besmirched?
Danny:
The law the line gets drawn on ordinary common sense - how many lawsuits have you got? How many callers have you had on your open-lines in the last 5 years - and how many lawsuits have arisen?
Randy:
One
Danny:
And ya know and just just think about it - and the ones who've done it have been people with sharp tongues who basically got back on again and they apologized. There's an awful lot of other people who are going very very very close to the line on what they're doing to destroy peoples' reputations - and ya know they need to be watched - because if they're going to be there and their gonna try and get political gain on the basis of taking someones good character and someones good reputation down - they deserve to be accountable in a court - and a judge will decide - as Roger Grimes has said the judges will decide on this and John Hickey is quite happy to allow a judge to decide on this - but that doesn't mean that every single caller that phones up whether they happen to be a regular Liberal caller - regular PC caller - regular NDP caller - are going to be subject to lie-suit that's lawsuit - that's just taken the whole argument to the ridiculous. So I just ya know its ya know I'm here to firstly first of all say it's not going to be taken out of the public purse - but I'm also saying that I think it's wrong that public officials get slandered because they're offering up their good lives to serve the people of this province. Thanks Randy - have a good morning.
Randy:
We're feeling I think - that what your saying is that you can't besmirch anybodies reputation - we have a moving target when it comes to defining what's libelous or slanderous or scandalous or whatever - and you know I'd rather that we erred on the side of - let's have a reputation or two muddied rather than have free speech in any way curbed and your commentary leaves the impression that - there's a real threat to free speech in loading up every MHA with a lawyer.
Danny:
Well first of all - I just wanna for the for the record - so so that we're very clear - John Hickey is the IEC will pay John Hickey's legal fees - but John Hickey is not going to the IEC - John Hickey is gonna pay his own legal fees. So just for the record so that that is very clear - I just want to make that straight off the top. Now secondly your comment on - let's maybe you know I I can't remember your word there Randy might a been smear couple of reputations - (Randy jumps in)
Randy:
Well now you know maybe we'd besmirch a reputation or two - (Danny jumps in)
Danny:
What about if it was yours? (Randy says "same thing") what about - what about if Roger Grimes came on the air and said ah Randy you're a criminal - you've deliberately mislead the people - you've deliberately misappropriated funds - you've deliberately done something that's criminal therefore you ah by your own deliberate actions are a criminal. How would you feel about that?
Randy:
I'd sue him!
Danny:
(giggling) That's all I need to know. That's all I need to know - and that's exactly the situation - (Randy jumps in)
Randy:
Yeah but but but hold on hold on hold on hold on - I'm gonna tell you it's gonna be a lot easier and a lot more comfortable to do that if my employer has said to me that it really doesn't matter Randy - you can have a lawyer whenever you want here - you can go with like a loaded gun and anybody who speaks ill of you - you can always threaten with a lawsuit. That to me curbs free speech - that's more dangerous than if my reputation gets besmirched - because as a public figure somebody says I'm a crook.
Danny:
Let me ask you another question then - so you're an open-line host you're a moderator on open-line and Roger Grimes phones up and says Randy - some of the things you've said over the last couple of days - boy you're a criminal - ahh you've deliberately done something here - you've deliberately mislead people - you've done something that's criminally wrong - you're a criminal - and he accuses you while you're an open-line host - in your capacity as an open-line host - would VOCM defend you?
Randy:
I would think - (Danny bullies in) there ya go - there's your answer again now - (Randy fights back)
Randy:
Yeah but hold on now - hold on now - I would think but only from the perspective of this - if there was some element of that that was going to impact upon this company - like for example I have no doubt that government should protect it's Ministers - you should you know the IEC should be up there all bats swinging if somebody - if I sued John Hickey or if I sued you - or something you know - they should be there in the course of your duties but you know - we're public figures - every single one of us - like it or not - so if somebody says you know listen - somebody comes on the air today for example Premier - and here's what scares me in this kind of action - somebody comes on the air and says - you know what Randy - the whole friggin lot of them - their all a bunch of crooks bye. Now come on - we know what that person is saying and reputations are not falling apart because of that - is it...
Danny:
But Randy Randy look from my perspective - with a statement like that I'm one of those crooks. I've spent 57 years of my life building my reputation as a lawyer as a businessperson and as a community volunteer - I've here - I work for nothing - I donate my salary - I have people who are coming out saying that because my salary is donated to a foundation I'm getting tax benefits from it - nothing is further from the truth because I actually not only donate my salary I donate the tax deduction as well - so 100% of my money is going to charities - so if people come out and start to tag politicians generally as being crooks you know that's an irresponsible statement - there has to be some limits - there has to be some controls - and when you get somebody who knows better who's a former Premier of a province and says that someone deliberately ahh entered into a criminal action - that's a pretty serious piece of business. And you said to me in the beginning if someone called you a criminal - you'd sue em - and if you said something in your capacity as moderator of that show - that VOCM would support ya. But I'm telling you first of all - ya know - John Hickey is going it alone - John Hickey knows he's got a strong opinion here - he knows he's got a very strong case - and he will be proceeding against Roger Grimes. (Randy tried to say something - the Premier bullied over him) people have no license to come on and completely destroy reputations. Look you know - open-lines are free speaks - they're wonderful vehicles - they get public opinion out - we get debate - I've learned lots of things from open-lines - I've heard your ??? callers phone in and suggest things that are wise wonderful things and I agree with all that - but you can't allow malicious people to tell untruths and destroy the reputations of good honest law-abiding people on open-lines. That that's my point simply. So you know just so the public knows it - they won't be be paying for any lawsuit against Roger Grimes - but I can tell you and I said it yesterday and I'll say it again - if Roger Grimes or anybody else goes after reputations of public officials - and they are telling untruths and they are telling incorrects incorrect things and they are not they are telling lies about people and destroying their reputations - they have a right to be sued and the people that want to should sue them and hold them accountable.
Randy:
Where do we draw the line between legitimate political criticism and disagreement and I'll say passionate debate - where do we draw the line between that and someones interpretation that my reputation has now been besmirched?
Danny:
The law the line gets drawn on ordinary common sense - how many lawsuits have you got? How many callers have you had on your open-lines in the last 5 years - and how many lawsuits have arisen?
Randy:
One
Danny:
And ya know and just just think about it - and the ones who've done it have been people with sharp tongues who basically got back on again and they apologized. There's an awful lot of other people who are going very very very close to the line on what they're doing to destroy peoples' reputations - and ya know they need to be watched - because if they're going to be there and their gonna try and get political gain on the basis of taking someones good character and someones good reputation down - they deserve to be accountable in a court - and a judge will decide - as Roger Grimes has said the judges will decide on this and John Hickey is quite happy to allow a judge to decide on this - but that doesn't mean that every single caller that phones up whether they happen to be a regular Liberal caller - regular PC caller - regular NDP caller - are going to be subject to lie-suit that's lawsuit - that's just taken the whole argument to the ridiculous. So I just ya know its ya know I'm here to firstly first of all say it's not going to be taken out of the public purse - but I'm also saying that I think it's wrong that public officials get slandered because they're offering up their good lives to serve the people of this province. Thanks Randy - have a good morning.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)