Slashdot Mirror
Muzzled Canadian Scientists Can Now Speak Freely With Public (thestar.com)
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."
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Not only were scientists muzzled, the media wasn't allowed to question the government either. Any kind of press was carefully preplanned, scripted and designed with the best interests of the Conservative party in mind.
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.
A lot of it was climate data, or any science that didn't agree with the Conservative ideology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In related news, a flood of new scientific data was released on the subject of maple syrup.
This is more or less the main thing I voted against Harper over. Yes, he was terrible in many ways but this was the most blatantly anti-public-interest. Unfortunately according to former members of the NRC, rebuilding what Harper dismantled could take decades.
Whether or not muzzling information was good or not was muzzled...we think. They never really said publicly, kinda like that info was muzzled.
rewriting history since 2109
... it was long overdue. I'm not a fan of the Liberals but this is a good 1st step in the right direction.
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.
"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!"
Whether or not muzzling information was good or not was muzzled...
This is an easy one. Muzzling information = always bad.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Any finding that may server to undermine the governments agenda was kept on a tight leash.
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).
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Um, no it has nothing to do with this. Canadian scientists were muzzled by the Conservative government in large part because what they would've otherwise said would have gone against the political agenda of the Conservative party. Let's just say that the vast majority of their policies were grounded in idiotic convictions rather than analysis. Conservatives also seem to hate science as a general rule, because God's word is all you need.
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.
... from speaking with the public exactly? Were all scientists that might have showed inclination about speaking on the matter put under house arrest for the past 6 years or something, and all internet and phone communications monitored? I find numerous mention of so-called strict rules in the past, and while I don't dispute their existence, I can't find any info at all on exactly how those rules were enforced.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
I'm not a fan of the Liberals but this is a good 1st step in the right direction. Thank you must also be given to the voters who finally were able to rally and kick out the Conservatives.Rozapk
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.
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? Why 2004 was announced as the 4th warmest? Why NASA scientists were talking about global warming at 2003 conferences? 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...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Canada was recently rated as the "most free" nation on Earth. This is also the country that dragged Mark Steyn into court for having the temerity to "insult Islam".
Who says that a scientist has to talk to the media just to talk to the public?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If your neighbor likes it to play loud music at four in the morning in your frontyard, you should let him live as he chooses. If the company up the river likes to dump their waste into your water supply, because this saves money and thus means higher bonusses for the bosses, you should let the managment live as it chooses. If the mob down the road likes to shot you down, because you wouldn't pay them to take care of your nice looking business, you should let them live as they choose.
I don't see how the employer would necessarily know if the public is not told through any kind of official channels.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You like making up stories to incite people to hate their neighbors, don't you?
I just cite real events. It has happened that people were playing loud music in the frontyard of their neigbors at four in the morning. It has happened that companies were dumping their waste in the local water supply. It has happened that a mob killed a business owner after the owner refusing to pay the protection money.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
--- Sueños del Sur - a webcomic about four young siblings
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 issue.
Worth watching the Youtube programme.
I don't think anyone can be said to come "from Syriza".
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.
Except that Canadians love the idea of things warming up. They won't have to travel to Hawaii, Florida, Arizona, etc nearly as often.
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 power).
It's a step in the right direction, but I'd still be treading carefully.
Log in or piss off.
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 Christian but she's not a fanatic that tries to muddle religion and state. She doesn't want to define Canada as a Christian only nation and crap like that. She supports tolerance for all religions and all peoples (including Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Indians, etc.l.... our neighbours and friends). She doesn't like homosexuality and gay marriage but even then it doesn't stop her for voting for parties that support gay marriage! In short, she tolerates even if she doesn't always agree.
I love my mom because she's my mom but I also love my mom because she's like this. We all have a vision of how the world should be. Things we don't like others. The difference between the fanatic and the good person, is the good person tolerates the quirks of other human beings. They don't oppress them. (with the caveat they also don't attempt to oppress other either)
Canada wasn't always tolerant. Natives Indians really suffered at the hands our intolerant forefathers. It took a long time before we learned to be tolerant. I was fortunate to be one of the first generations to grow up in a tolerant Canada. I want don't want our country to go back to persecuted minorities for nationalistic, racial, and religious reasons. There is enough of that going on in the world today.
While much of the rest of the world is closing its doors in, we should be a beacon of light and refuge to all by open our doors even further. Everyone should be welcome in Canada.
that's next on the News, wait a bit...
I don't think anyone can be said to come "from Syriza".
I'd say that Alexis Tsipras did.
It's funny for liberals to be praised for transparency, because: 1) they opposed natives execs to disclose their income, and 2) they successfully barred Harper to impose economic transparency for unions...
Liberals are far from being "tolerant"... As a gun owner, I'm pretty sure Shiny Pony is gonna make me a paper criminal within the next few years.
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 simple. A common sense policy, something which the religious right wing dolts who are scared by the politically motivated NRA firearms industry lobby in the good 'ol US of A just don't seem to be able comprehend.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
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?
Ignorant cunt.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work...
Awww... are you one of the gullible idiots who was told Obama was coming for your guns in 2009... and 2010... and 2011... and 2012.... and 2013.... and 2014.... and 2015...... but he's really coming for them in 2016....
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. Personally i think he was off by 59 seconds.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
It's no surprise that someone as stupid as you is also a gun nut.
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.
How does that justify slurring religious people?
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?
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/
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
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...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
We're none of those things. You're a paranoid.
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.
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?
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.
no critical thinking
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Technically, you don't need a license to buy a muzzle-loader or an antique.
Since Dr. Hansen's December 6 talk, NASA has rejected several media requests to interview him, including one by National Public Radio (NPR)... A NASA public affairs official appointed by the White House, George Deutsch, rejected the NPR interview request. He called NPR "the most liberal" media outlet in the country, and that his job was "to make the president look good" - http://www.wunderground.com/bl...
Btw, there is no way in Canada you will never "carry" a firearm. A correct analogy with car would be that your car need to be stored locked, if not in a disabled state, separate from fuel. When you want to drive your sport car, you can only use it between your home and the approved race track, with the proper paperwork, using only on the shortest route. If you want to sell that car, you first need to ask the Government do transfer it to the new owner (transfer which can be refused). Moreover, the Government can decide overnight that your car model is prohibited, and confiscate it without monetary compensation.
You're welcome.
He's still thinking about it.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
FWIW, Australian gun law is no more than a gun grab...
Tell the tax collectors that.
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 firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25
(range .16 to .33).
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/w...
You're saying that like scientists posting results and doing work is something new. They existed before Harper muzzled them, you know that, right? They didn't conform to ideologies either. Yet, there's exactly one government that decided they had to be controlled and their ability to talk restricted. One.
Whether or not muzzling information was good or not was muzzled...
This is an easy one. Muzzling information = always bad.
You got that right.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Shamelessly cut and paste from WP.
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 any other federal agency in requiring employees to coordinate all statements with the public affairs office without exception.[109] Two years after Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general confirmed that such activities had taken place, with the NASA Office of Public Affairs having "reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public".[110]
In June 2006, Hansen appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the George W. Bush White House had edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening.[69] He also stated that he was unable to speak freely without the backlash of other government officials, and that he had not experienced that level of restrictions on communicating with the public during his career.[69]
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Young Trudeau seems in the spirit of Canadian values of tolerance and political moderation but he doesn't seem particularly bright. Nevertheless I voted for him because I would have voted for Greens, NDP, the Bloc, or the Rhinos if it meant getting rid of Harper.
You have to go way way back, to when Canada was still a collection of colonies, to find this degree of incompetence in our leadership. Harper was obviously a puppet of American neo-conservatives (like Cameron in the UK). Despite Harper's loss, it's become apparent we too now have to contend with some of our own mystic far right extremists at home.
I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives were about more worldly matters. I liked Harris regionally. Joe Clark nationally. And even though they were mystics I still liked Reagan, Bush Sr, the Iron Lady in the UK.
Since then though. its been nothing but downhill for conservatism. "Conservatives" are slowly losing their marbles to religious extremism. It's obvious by their erratic behavior "conservatism" for many is becoming a synonym for their religious views rather than reason. They are inch-by-inch turning themselves into Jewish and Christian versions of the Taliban.
Canada did its part to reverse this trend by getting rid of Harper. UK needs to ditch Cameron. The US needs real change not empty promises of change. Ditch the earth-is-6000- year old crazies. (Bernie Sanders would be a good choice IMO but not sure if US is ready yet for an essentially secular President)
Israel needs to get rid of warmonger "Bibi" and the rest ultra nationalist racist mystic knuckleheads in their government. Arab dominated nations need to get rid of pretty much every leader. Seeing as sticking to Islamic leaders hasn't worked out so hot how about picking someone that doesn't believing in Allah for a change?
Although religion is obviously cultism based on myths, people that are religious should have the freedom to practice their religion. They should allowed to vote. They should have full equal rights (including allowed to hold political office) However when those that are religious... actually try to muddle their religion with matters of state... they should be kept as far away from holding political power as possible. (where they pose a danger both to themselves and others)
Brainless prick - you said forbidden to speak. Then you post an article talking about just such conversations happening. Forbidden? Hardly. Get a brain you dolt.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
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 represent the opinion of the institutions they work in. Don't the leaders and senior leaders of that institution have a right to know about the activity then?
Try this: go to IBM and try to get a media statement from one of their scientists, just a one-on-one, no supervisors involved. Do the same for NASA. It's not going to happen.
Yeah, the Canadian scientists were not muzzled. This must have been a symptom for another issue they had with the government.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I read what you wrote. And it's wrong. Hansen spoke anyway, and per your own article he was "talked to" AFTER the his interviews and publications. And he bore no repercussions. Was there even a warning as Hansen (a proven, documented liar) claimed? If there was - then show the proof. Show the memos requiring him to only speak through spin-doctors, of the threat of losing his job.
Just because you suck on the knob of Hansen et. al. do not assume that others will be blinded by their scientific jism in your eye...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I could still choose to keep my money in my pocket and do without whatever they're selling.
So starve to death or regress to hunter/gatherer. No everything is an optional luxury. And even if it were, your utopia is cutting down on things we can buy now, because of the monopolies and cartels. That's a bad thing not a good one.
You certainly won't be modern man driving around. No roads. And good luck keeping your property when there's no police to call in.
That's an argument for a very small, very limited government -- just big enough to prevent total monopolies.
Press a libertarian and they always reconsider. They realise that actually they DO need government. They're just small minded cry-babies who want the government to do only the things they need, and fuck what everyone else needs.
So starve to death or regress to hunter/gatherer.
Because a corporation could totally have a monopoly on food sales. You'd have to be truly paranoid to believe something that ridiculous.
Press a libertarian and they always reconsider. They realise that actually they DO need government.
Strawman defeated. Congrats.
Smart people can have a conversation about how much government to have. Apparently you can't because the only answers you can imagine are "maximum government, always, in all things" vs. "none at all".
There are loads of ways of getting information into public knowledge without using the media. Word of mouth works suprisingly well.
But my point is that given that the only "enforcement" possible was duress, the scientists must have been complicit in these restrictions, and they ultimately must have been convinced that the public didn't really need to know anyways. Really, if the science really mattered, they'd publish anyways, and just start looking for another job. Also, when the employer fired them, the public would know what the reason was, since they had published, and the employer might face a PR backlash from the general public if they believed the matter to be important enough.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
When Harper's government shut down scientific libraries and threw them in the dumpster there were some irreplaceable things lost. To bad he'll never get charged with that crime.
"CBC News ? really ? This must be the most politically biased media in the country..."
Agreed.
The "Canadian Brainwashing Corporation" is more about peddling propaganda than informative, investigative journalism.
Then again, so is all modern mainstream new media.
It's also interesting to note that the largest, most popular Canadian 'news' service (CBC) is hosted by a freemason; Brother Peter Mansbridge.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
I own stock in a very few companies directly, so that I can participate in the company votes. In most companies, the bulk of the stock is held by mutual funds or retirement funds or whatever, that have little interest in corporate governance and will pretty well rubber-stamp the board. The net result is that I have no real influence over corporate governance, and if a few million of my close personal friends decided to chip in we'd still have no real influence.
On the other hand, I vote for certain government offices, which have control over most of the rest of government. My vote or donation is not significant due to the sheer number of potential voters, but if I get a few million friends together we can have some very solid influence.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
... and all internet and phone communications monitored?
Funny you should ask. Yes. Yes they were. Every phone call they made was logged. Every web site they visited was logged. Every email they sent was captured and stored. So were all of yours. Harper's government used equipment Cisco designed for the NSA, eagerly installed by Bell and Shaw and Rogers in datacenters across the entire country.
Are you starting to see the problem here?