Absolutely disgraceful, and another act that I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will strike down.
A myriad of links can be found here.
www.salon.com/2011/11/28/inside_the_attack_on_the_first_amendment/
QuoteInside the attack on the First Amendment
An op-ed got Davis fired from his government job. He's hardly the first to have his free speech rights trampled
By Peter Van Buren
This originally appeared on TomDispatch.
Here's the First Amendment, in full: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Those beautiful words, almost haiku-like, are the sparse poetry of the American democratic experiment. The Founders purposely wrote the First Amendment to read broadly, and not like a snippet of tax code, in order to emphasize that it should encompass everything from shouted religious rantings to eloquent political criticism. Go ahead, reread it aloud at this moment when the government seems to be carving out an exception to it large enough to drive a tank through.
As the occupiers of Zuccotti Park, like those pepper-sprayed at UC Davis or the Marine veteran shot in Oakland, recently found out, the government's ability to limit free speech, to stopper the First Amendment, to undercut the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, is perhaps the most critical issue our republic can face. If you were to write the history of the last decade in Washington, it might well be a story of how, issue by issue, the government freed itself from legal and constitutional bounds when it came to torture, the assassination of U.S. citizens, the holding of prisoners without trial or access to a court of law, the illegal surveillance of American citizens, and so on. In the process, it has entrenched itself in a comfortable shadowland of ever more impenetrable secrecy, while going after any whistleblower who might shine a light in.
Now, it also seems to be chipping away at the most basic American right of all, the right of free speech, starting with that of its own employees. As is often said, the easiest book to stop is the one that is never written; the easiest voice to staunch is the one that is never raised.
It's true that, over the years, government in its many forms has tried to claim that you lose your free speech rights when you, for example, work for a public school, or join the military. In dealing with school administrators who sought to silence a teacher for complaining publicly that not enough money was being spent on academics versus athletics, or generals who wanted to stop enlisted men and women from blogging, the courts have found that any loss of rights must be limited and specific. As Jim Webb wrote when still Secretary of the Navy, "A citizen does not give up his First Amendment right to free speech when he puts on a military uniform, with small exceptions."
Free speech is considered so basic that the courts have been wary of imposing any limits at all. The famous warning by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes about not falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater shows just how extreme a situation must be for the Supreme Court to limit speech. As Holmes put it in his definition: "The question in every case is whether the words used... are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." That's a high bar indeed.
The Government v. Morris Davis
Does a newspaper article from November 2009, a few hundred well-reasoned words that appeared in the conservative Wall Street Journal, concluding with these mild sentences, meet Justice Holmes's high mark?
"Double standards don't play well in Peoria. They won't play well in Peshawar or Palembang either. We need to work to change the negative perceptions that exist about Guantanamo and our commitment to the law. Formally establishing a legal double standard will only reinforce them."
Morris Davis got fired from his research job at the Library of Congress for writing that article and a similar letter to the editor of the Washington Post. (The irony of being fired for exercising free speech while employed at Thomas Jefferson's library evidently escaped his bosses.) With the help of the ACLU, Davis demanded his job back. On January 8, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Library of Congress on his behalf. In March 2011 a federal court ruled that the suit could go forward.
The case is being heard this month. Someday, it will likely define the free speech rights of federal employees and so determine the quality of people who will make up our government. We citizens vote for the big names, but it's the millions of lower-ranked, unelected federal employees who decide by their actions how the laws are carried out (or ignored) and the Constitution upheld (or disregarded).
Morris Davis is not some dour civil servant. Prior to joining the Library of Congress, he spent more than 25 years as an Air Force colonel. He was, in fact, the chief military prosecutor at Guantánamo and showed enormous courage in October 2007 when he resigned from that position and left the Air Force. Davis had stated he would not use evidence obtained through torture back in 2005. When a torture advocate was named his boss in 2007, Davis quit rather than face the inevitable order to reverse his position.
In December 2008, Davis went to work as a researcher at the Library of Congress in the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division. None of his work was related to Guantanamo. He was not a spokesperson for, or a public face of, the library. He was respected at work. Even the people who fired him do not contest that he did his "day job" as a researcher well.
On November 12, 2009, the day after his op-ed and letter appeared, Davis was told by his boss that the pieces had caused the library concern over his "poor judgment and suitability to serve... not consistent with 'acceptable service'" — as the letter of admonishment he received put the matter. It referred only to his op-ed and Washington Post letter, and said nothing about his work performance as a researcher. One week later, Davis was fired.
But Shouldn't He Have Known Better Than to Write Something Political?
The courts have consistently supported the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to use extreme and hateful words, of the burners of books, and of those who desecrate the American flag. All of that is considered "protected speech." A commitment to real free speech means accepting the toughest cases, the most offensive things people can conceive of, as the price of a free society.
The Library of Congress does not restrict its employees from writing or speaking, so Davis broke no rules. Nor, theoretically at least, do other government agencies like the CIA and the State Department restrict employees from writing or speaking, even on matters of official concern, although they do demand prior review for such things as the possible misuse of classified material.
Clearly, such agency review processes have sometimes been used as a de facto method of prior restraint. The CIA, for example, has been accused of using indefinite security reviews to effectively prevent a book from being published. The Department of Defense has also wielded exaggerated claims of classified material to block books.
Since at least 1968, there has, however, been no broad prohibition against government employees writing about political matters or matters of public concern. In 1968, the Supreme Court decided a seminal public employee First Amendment case, Pickering v. Board of Education. It ruled that school officials had violated the First Amendment rights of teacher Marvin Pickering when they fired him for writing a letter to his local paper criticizing the allocation of money between academics and athletics.
A Thought Crime
Morris Davis was fired by the Library of Congress not because of his work performance, but because he wrote that Wall Street Journal op-ed on his own time, using his own computer, as a private citizen, never mentioning his (unrelated) federal job. The government just did not like what he wrote. Perhaps his bosses were embarrassed by his words, or felt offended by them. Certainly, in the present atmosphere in Washington, they felt they had an open path to stopping their own employee from saying what he did, or at least for punishing him for doing so.
It's not, of course, that federal employees don't write and speak publicly. As long as they don't step on toes, they do, in startling numbers, on matters of official concern, on hobbies, on subjects of all sorts, through what must be an untold number of blogs, Facebook pages, Tweets, op-eds, and letters to the editor. The government picked Davis out for selective, vindictive prosecution.
More significantly, Davis was fired prospectively — not for poor attendance, or too much time idling at the water cooler, but because his boss believed Davis's writing showed that the quality of his judgment might make him an unsuitable employee at some future moment. The simple act of speaking out on a subject at odds with an official government position was the real grounds for his firing. That, and that alone, was enough for termination.
As any devoted fan of George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, or Philip K. Dick would know, Davis committed a thought crime.
As some readers may also know, I evidently did the same thing. Because of my book, "We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People," about my experiences as a State Department official in Iraq, and the articles, op-eds, and blog posts I have written, I first had my security clearance suspended by the Department of State and then was suspended from my job there. That job had nothing to do with Iraq or any of the subjects I have written about. My performance reviews were good, and no one at State criticized me for my day-job work. Because we have been working under different human resources systems, Davis, as a civil servant on new-hire probation, could be fired directly. As a tenured Foreign Service Officer, I can't, and so State has placed me on indefinite administrative leave status; that is, I'm without a job, pending action to terminate me formally through a more laborious process.
However, in removing me from my position, the document the State Department delivered to me darkly echoed what Davis' boss at the Library of Congress said to him:
"The manner in which you have expressed yourself in some of your published material is inconsistent with the standards of behavior expected of the Foreign Service. Some of your actions also raise questions about your overall judgment. Both good judgment and the ability to represent the Foreign Service in a way that will make the Foreign Service attractive to candidates are key requirements."
There follows a pattern of punishing federal employees for speaking out or whistle-blowing: look at Davis, or me, or Franz Gayl, or Thomas Drake. In this way, a precedent is being set for an even deeper cloud of secrecy to surround the workings of government. From Washington, in other words, no news, other than good or officially approved news, is to emerge.
The government's statements at Davis's trial, now underway in Washington D.C., do indeed indicate that he was fired for the act of speaking out itself, as much as the content of what he said. The Justice Department lawyer representing the government said that Davis's writings cast doubt on his discretion, judgment and ability to serve as a high-level official. (She also added that Davis's language in the op-ed was "intemperate." One judge on the three-member bench seemed to support the point, saying, "It's one thing to speak at a law school or association, but it's quite a different thing to be in The Washington Post." The case will likely end up at the Supreme Court.
Free Speech is for Iranians, not Government Employees
If Morris Davis loses his case, then a federal employee's judgment and suitability may be termed insufficient for employment if he or she writes publicly in a way that offends or embarrasses the government. In other words, the very definition of good judgment, when it comes to freedom of speech, will then rest with the individual employer — that is, the U.S. government.
Simply put, even if you as a federal employee follow your agency's rules on publication, you can still be fired for what you write if your bosses don't like it. If your speech offends them, then that's bad judgment on your part and the First Amendment goes down the drain. Free speech is increasingly coming at a price in Washington: for federal employees, conscience could cost them their jobs.
In this sense, Morris Davis represents a chilling precedent. He raised his voice. If we're not careful, the next Morris Davis may not. Federal employees are, at best, a skittish bunch, not known for their innovative, out-of-the-box thinking. Actions like those in the Davis case will only further deter any thoughts of speaking out, and will likely deter some good people from seeking federal employment.
More broadly, the Davis case threatens to give the government free rein in selecting speech by its employees it does not like and punishing it. It's okay to blog about your fascination with knitting or to support official positions. If you happen to be Iranian or Chinese or Syrian, and not terribly fond of your government, and express yourself on the subject, the U.S. government will support your right to do it 110% of the way. However, as a federal employee, blog about your negative opinions on U.S. policies and you've got a problem. In fact, we have a problem as a country if freedom of speech only holds as long as it does not offend the U.S. government.
Morris Davis's problem is neither unique nor isolated. Clothilde Le Coz, Washington director of Reporters without Borders, told me earlier this month, "Secrecy is taking over from free speech in the United States. While we naively thought the Obama administration would be more transparent than the previous one, it is actually the first to sue five people for being sources and speaking publicly." Scary, especially since this is no longer an issue of one rogue administration.
Government is different than private business. If you don't like McDonald's because of its policies, go to Burger King, or a soup kitchen, or eat at home. You don't get the choice of federal governments, and so the critical need for its employees to be able to speak informs the republic. We are the only ones who can tell you what is happening inside your government. It really is that important. Ask Morris Davis.
[Note on further readings: You can check out the ACLU's full-filing text on behalf of Davis by clicking here.]
[Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, or any other entity of the U.S. Government. It should be quite obvious that the Department of State has not approved, endorsed, or authorized this post.]
QuoteAs the occupiers of Zuccotti Park, like those pepper-sprayed at UC Davis or the Marine veteran shot in Oakland, recently found out, the government's ability to limit free speech, to stopper the First Amendment, to undercut the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, is perhaps the most critical issue our republic can face.
:rolleyes:
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
QuoteIf you were to write the history of the last decade in Washington, it might well be a story of how, issue by issue, the government freed itself from legal and constitutional bounds when it came to torture, the assassination of U.S. citizens, the holding of prisoners without trial or access to a court of law, the illegal surveillance of American citizens, and so on. In the process, it has entrenched itself in a comfortable shadowland of ever more impenetrable secrecy, while going after any whistleblower who might shine a light in.
I find it interesting that the 1990s, with Bill Clinton, gave us "The X-Files" focusing on government conspiracies, while the 2000s have given us "24" and Jack Bauer.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
So you're fine with the government firing employees for writing op-eds in the newspaper that degree with government policy?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 01:49:25 PMSo you're fine with the government firing employees for writing op-eds in the newspaper that degree with government policy?
Generally, yes. Either civil service is neutral in which case they shouldn't be writing op-eds, or they're political in which case they shouldn't be disagreeing with government politics.
There are exceptions and I've not read this article so this could be one of them. But my immediate reaction is like Marty's :mellow:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
So you're fine with the government firing employees for writing op-eds in the newspaper that degree with government policy?
I'm pretty sure that if I wrote a letter to a newspaper criticizing government policy I would be canned PDQ.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
So you're fine with the government firing employees for writing op-eds in the newspaper that degree with government policy?
I'm pretty sure that if I wrote a letter to a newspaper criticizing government policy I would be canned PDQ.
I am not so sure. Crown counsel in this province have been very vocal about underfunding of the justice system.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
So you're fine with the government firing employees for writing op-eds in the newspaper that degree with government policy?
I'm pretty sure that if I wrote a letter to a newspaper criticizing government policy I would be canned PDQ.
We're not talking about what would happen, we're talking about what should happen. Do you think that that is an appropriate response? I certainly do not.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
It is government action imposing a deleterious consqeunce on a citizen for the sole reason that that citizen exercised his speech rights in a particular way.
How could not not be a First Amendment issue?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 02:34:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
It is government action imposing a deleterious consqeunce on a citizen for the sole reason that that citizen exercised his speech rights in a particular way.
How could not not be a First Amendment issue?
There are often consequences to people exercising their rights. Private employers can fire you for saying things that they don't like. I'm not 100% convinced that the same standard shouldn't exist for government employees. As long as the government doesn't prevent you from speaking in the first place, or impose criminal or civil penalties, I'm not sure that there's a First Amendment issue. Mind you, I'm not entirely comfortable with it either, and I'm not sure how you can square it with
Pickering
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
So you're fine with the government firing employees for writing op-eds in the newspaper that degree with government policy?
I'm pretty sure that if I wrote a letter to a newspaper criticizing government policy I would be canned PDQ.
I am not so sure. Crown counsel in this province have been very vocal about underfunding of the justice system.
Your Crown counsel are semi-unionized. We are not. People here are, while not routinely, but occasionally, shown the door for a lot less.
Besides, that kind of specific criticism is probably given with the tacit, or even explicit, approval of the DM. Taking budget battles public is not uncommon in the world of government. Specifically criticizing a specific government policy, however, just doesn't happen by us public servants.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 02:34:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
It is government action imposing a deleterious consqeunce on a citizen for the sole reason that that citizen exercised his speech rights in a particular way.
How could not not be a First Amendment issue?
It's the government acting with dominium, not imperium. As such its actions are no different than those of a private company.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 02:10:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
So you're fine with the government firing employees for writing op-eds in the newspaper that degree with government policy?
I'm pretty sure that if I wrote a letter to a newspaper criticizing government policy I would be canned PDQ.
We're not talking about what would happen, we're talking about what should happen. Do you think that that is an appropriate response? I certainly do not.
As a public servant it is not appropriate for you to be expressing public political opinions. Public servants are supposed to be apolitical, and able to work with governments of any political ideology.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 02:34:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
It is government action imposing a deleterious consqeunce on a citizen for the sole reason that that citizen exercised his speech rights in a particular way.
How could not not be a First Amendment issue?
It's the government acting with dominium, not imperium. As such its actions are no different than those of a private company.
At least up here, the government (and NOT private business) must comply with the Charter of Rights in everything that it does. You'd never say "well the government should be treated like a private company" when it comes to respecting human rights.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 03:19:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 02:10:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
So you're fine with the government firing employees for writing op-eds in the newspaper that degree with government policy?
I'm pretty sure that if I wrote a letter to a newspaper criticizing government policy I would be canned PDQ.
We're not talking about what would happen, we're talking about what should happen. Do you think that that is an appropriate response? I certainly do not.
As a public servant it is not appropriate for you to be expressing public political opinions. Public servants are supposed to be apolitical, and able to work with governments of any political ideology.
The SCC in Osborne (sp?) disagreed with your analysis and struck down the provision of the Act that required public servants to be apolitical. I believe the Act now provides a restriction that balances the public servants freedom of expression with the requirements of their job by allowing all expression which does not interfere with their duties.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 03:20:44 PM
At least up here, the government (and NOT private business) must comply with the Charter of Rights in everything that it does. You'd never say "well the government should be treated like a private company" when it comes to respecting human rights.
Up here the Common law is interpreted in a manner consistent which Charter values. As a result it would be very hard for an employer to argue they had cause to terminate an employee for engaging in an expressive right protected by the Charter. There would have to be a clear link between what the employee said and harm to the employer.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 02:34:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
It is government action imposing a deleterious consqeunce on a citizen for the sole reason that that citizen exercised his speech rights in a particular way.
How could not not be a First Amendment issue?
It's the government acting with dominium, not imperium. As such its actions are no different than those of a private company.
So the government is not the government in some circumstances in Poland? Sounds like a nice loophole for governments to use to restrict fundamental freedoms.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 03:19:32 PM
As a public servant it is not appropriate for you to be expressing public political opinions. Public servants are supposed to be apolitical, and able to work with governments of any political ideology.
So, basically, by the argument you and Sheilbh are presenting, a citizen forfeits their first amendment rights upon joining a civil service? That's not how it works. The service and its policies are expected to be apolitical, not the workers. It should only become an issue when someone purports to speak for the organization, because the political comments are then perceived as (if they are not actually) a matter of policy.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 28, 2011, 03:32:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 03:19:32 PM
As a public servant it is not appropriate for you to be expressing public political opinions. Public servants are supposed to be apolitical, and able to work with governments of any political ideology.
So, basically, by the argument you and Sheilbh are presenting, a citizen forfeits their first amendment rights upon joining a civil service? That's not how it works. The service and its policies are expected to be apolitical, not the workers. It should only become an issue when someone purports to speak for the organization, because the political comments are then perceived as (if they are not actually) a matter of policy.
:rolleyes:
Hardly forfeits, but yes, there are some restrictions on your freedom of speech.
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 03:15:33 PM
It's the government acting with dominium, not imperium.
We Yanks live in a real democracy, not some bastardized wannabe neo-Roman Empire with periodic voting. State action is state action. Constitutional limits on state action are interpreted strictly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
Regulations can say whatever, but they have to be consistent with constitutional limits on state power.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 03:55:32 PM
Regulations can say whatever, but they have to be consistent with constitutional limits on state power.
I was responding to Banana. Quit stalking me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:57:16 PM
I was responding to Banana. Quit stalking me.
A quick glance through the links provided by Department of the Interior says otherwise. I can't be arsed to go through all the repealed shite.
Quote from: dps on November 28, 2011, 02:58:07 PM
. Mind you, I'm not entirely comfortable with it either, and I'm not sure how you can square it with Pickering
Assuming the facts are as reported in Timmy's article, you can't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
There are. Up here volunteering for campaigns is fine, but I have to stay out of any public role. But I can stuff all the envelopes that I want to.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
There are. Up here volunteering for campaigns is fine, but I have to stay out of any public role. But I can stuff all the envelopes that I want to.
could you do pro-bono work for a politician? I don't know what that would entail. Editing legal stuff like bills and the like i guess.
Actual, since you're working for the crown, can you do any other kind of legal work? or is that looked down upon?
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
There are. Up here volunteering for campaigns is fine, but I have to stay out of any public role. But I can stuff all the envelopes that I want to.
BB you should re-read the applicable sections of the Public Service Act. You are even able to run for public office with consent. Your notion expressed early in the thread of complete impartiality of all public servants has not been accurate since 1991 (the date of the SCC Osborne case).
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 04:09:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
There are. Up here volunteering for campaigns is fine, but I have to stay out of any public role. But I can stuff all the envelopes that I want to.
could you do pro-bono work for a politician? I don't know what that would entail. Editing legal stuff like bills and the like i guess.
Actual, since you're working for the crown, can you do any other kind of legal work? or is that looked down upon?
The problem is insurance. Working for the government I don't carry any professional liability insurance (government self-insures), which means if I did legal work outside of work I would have no insurance.
Plus
pro bono work is supposed to be work that helps the community. But my work already helps the community.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 04:10:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
There are. Up here volunteering for campaigns is fine, but I have to stay out of any public role. But I can stuff all the envelopes that I want to.
BB you should re-read the applicable sections of the Public Service Act. You are even able to run for public office with consent. Your notion expressed early in the thread of complete impartiality of all public servants has not been accurate since 1991 (the date of the SCC Osborne case).
I could run for office - as long as I took a leave without pay to do so.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:12:19 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 04:09:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
There are. Up here volunteering for campaigns is fine, but I have to stay out of any public role. But I can stuff all the envelopes that I want to.
could you do pro-bono work for a politician? I don't know what that would entail. Editing legal stuff like bills and the like i guess.
Actual, since you're working for the crown, can you do any other kind of legal work? or is that looked down upon?
The problem is insurance. Working for the government I don't carry any professional liability insurance (government self-insures), which means if I did legal work outside of work I would have no insurance.
Plus pro bono work is supposed to be work that helps the community. But my work already helps the community.
Also conflicts, I would think? Unless you were practicing out of the criminal sphere.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 28, 2011, 04:13:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:12:19 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 04:09:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
There are. Up here volunteering for campaigns is fine, but I have to stay out of any public role. But I can stuff all the envelopes that I want to.
could you do pro-bono work for a politician? I don't know what that would entail. Editing legal stuff like bills and the like i guess.
Actual, since you're working for the crown, can you do any other kind of legal work? or is that looked down upon?
The problem is insurance. Working for the government I don't carry any professional liability insurance (government self-insures), which means if I did legal work outside of work I would have no insurance.
Plus pro bono work is supposed to be work that helps the community. But my work already helps the community.
Also conflicts, I would think? Unless you were practicing out of the criminal sphere.
There's that too.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:12:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 04:10:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
There are. Up here volunteering for campaigns is fine, but I have to stay out of any public role. But I can stuff all the envelopes that I want to.
BB you should re-read the applicable sections of the Public Service Act. You are even able to run for public office with consent. Your notion expressed early in the thread of complete impartiality of all public servants has not been accurate since 1991 (the date of the SCC Osborne case).
I could run for office - as long as I took a leave without pay to do so.
That is just one small example of where you were wrong. ;)
that's a weird loop hole. "As a civil servant you can still run for public office... you just can't come to work or get paid" :lol:
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 04:19:23 PM
that's a weird loop hole. "As a civil servant you can still run for public office... you just can't come to work or get paid" :lol:
It is almost impossible to fire a civil servant so job tenure is important. Being able to take a leave of absence to run for political office is therefore a significant advantage.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 04:18:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:12:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 04:10:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
I thought there was something in the civil service regs about political acitivity. No volunteering for campaigns, that kind of stuff.
There are. Up here volunteering for campaigns is fine, but I have to stay out of any public role. But I can stuff all the envelopes that I want to.
BB you should re-read the applicable sections of the Public Service Act. You are even able to run for public office with consent. Your notion expressed early in the thread of complete impartiality of all public servants has not been accurate since 1991 (the date of the SCC Osborne case).
I could run for office - as long as I took a leave without pay to do so.
That is just one small example of where you were wrong. ;)
:huh:
I already knew that. I haven't been trying to lay out a comprehensive listing of what public servants can or can not do.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 04:21:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 04:19:23 PM
that's a weird loop hole. "As a civil servant you can still run for public office... you just can't come to work or get paid" :lol:
It is almost impossible to fire a civil servant so job tenure is important. Being able to take a leave of absence to run for political office is therefore a significant advantage.
oh right, forgot about tenure. Could someone, in theory, who worked for 5 years take leave get appointed for say 25 years and then come back at 30 years tenure? or is there a cut off point?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 03:54:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 03:15:33 PM
It's the government acting with dominium, not imperium.
We Yanks live in a real democracy, not some bastardized wannabe neo-Roman Empire with periodic voting.
:XD:
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 28, 2011, 02:34:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
It is government action imposing a deleterious consqeunce on a citizen for the sole reason that that citizen exercised his speech rights in a particular way.
How could not not be a First Amendment issue?
It's the government acting with dominium, not imperium. As such its actions are no different than those of a private company.
At least up here, the government (and NOT private business) must comply with the Charter of Rights in everything that it does. You'd never say "well the government should be treated like a private company" when it comes to respecting human rights.
It's not considered a human right to hold a government job, is it?
Not a rhetorical question--I certainly wouldn't hold that there is a human right to hold a government job, but I have no idea what the Canadian courts would say about it.
Quote from: dps on November 28, 2011, 04:45:02 PM
It's not considered a human right to hold a government job, is it?
Not a rhetorical question--I certainly wouldn't hold that there is a human right to hold a government job, but I have no idea what the Canadian courts would say about it.
Pretty sure it is a question of what your rights are when you hold a government job, not that you have a right to said job.
Quote from: dpsIt's not considered a human right to hold a government job, is it?
:hmm:
:P
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 04:23:46 PM
I already knew that. I haven't been trying to lay out a comprehensive listing of what public servants can or can not do.
Earlier you were taking the line that a public servant had to be apolitical and could not express a public political view. That is incorrect as such a wide restriction is contrary to the Charter - see Osborne.
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 04:31:12 PM
Could someone, in theory, who worked for 5 years take leave get appointed for say 25 years and then come back at 30 years tenure? or is there a cut off point?
I would assume that the length of time away would be a factor in whether to grant consent.
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 04:31:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 04:21:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 04:19:23 PM
that's a weird loop hole. "As a civil servant you can still run for public office... you just can't come to work or get paid" :lol:
It is almost impossible to fire a civil servant so job tenure is important. Being able to take a leave of absence to run for political office is therefore a significant advantage.
oh right, forgot about tenure. Could someone, in theory, who worked for 5 years take leave get appointed for say 25 years and then come back at 30 years tenure? or is there a cut off point?
Well for starters you certainly wouldn't come back at 30 years tenure.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 05:28:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 04:31:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2011, 04:21:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 28, 2011, 04:19:23 PM
that's a weird loop hole. "As a civil servant you can still run for public office... you just can't come to work or get paid" :lol:
It is almost impossible to fire a civil servant so job tenure is important. Being able to take a leave of absence to run for political office is therefore a significant advantage.
oh right, forgot about tenure. Could someone, in theory, who worked for 5 years take leave get appointed for say 25 years and then come back at 30 years tenure? or is there a cut off point?
Well for starters you certainly wouldn't come back at 30 years tenure.
Yeah, I would assume that even if you were allowed to come back with your previous tender intact, you certainly wouldn't be allowed to continue to accrue service time during your leave. OTOH, again, it's Canadian law, so I don't know for sure.
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 03:19:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 02:10:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 28, 2011, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 28, 2011, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
How the hell this is the case of the First Amendment at all???
So you're fine with the government firing employees for writing op-eds in the newspaper that degree with government policy?
I'm pretty sure that if I wrote a letter to a newspaper criticizing government policy I would be canned PDQ.
We're not talking about what would happen, we're talking about what should happen. Do you think that that is an appropriate response? I certainly do not.
As a public servant it is not appropriate for you to be expressing public political opinions. Public servants are supposed to be apolitical, and able to work with governments of any political ideology.
I don't see how one can square the alleged neutrality of the civil service with their war on the current government.
Quote from: Neil on November 28, 2011, 07:02:12 PM
I don't see how one can square the alleged neutrality of the civil service with their war on the current government.
I don't see how one can stay so stubborn on the subject when he's not even talking about the same country's civil service. I'll bow to Beeb's superior knowledge of civil service... in Canada. This ruckus involves the US civil service, which is a totally different beast. ;)