Theory: Conservative MP Mike Allen was accidentally "invited" to the NDP caucus conference call
Someone will probably skewer me for staring a new thread, but here goes...
The caucus tape controversy created by the Conservatives is more evidence of their boneheadedness and is a much more negative story for them than anyone else. Their claims that they were "invited" and therefore it wasn't illegal or unethical to participate or record the meeting is pathetic when they obvioulsy any "invitation" they received was in error and the NDP only wanted their own caucus members and staff to participate.
But the question remains, how did they get an "invitation". A typo with an email address is the most likely scenario. With 308 MPs, there are many with similar names (our own caucus has 2 Martins and 2 Davies). But the error had to be with one of our new MPs, otherwise the mistake would have surfaced before the election (probably not to the public but at least to NDP staff).
So I looked up the full list of MPs:
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
And right there are the top of the list is Mike Allen, a Conservative MP. His email address is Allen.M@parl.gc.ca which happens to be very similar to new NDP MP Malcolm Allen's email address Allen.Ma@parl.gc.ca...
There are other contenders for this mix-up: John Duncan instead of Linda Duncan or Richard Harris instead of Jack Harris. But my money's on Mike Allen.
Someone should ask Mike Allen point blank if he or his staff received the information for the NDP caucus conference call...
Haha. I went through the same logic.
Pathetic is the right word for the claim that the Conservative MP was "invited" to listen in on the call.
I once received a credit card in the mail for my neighbour across the street. If I'd used it instead of returning it, could I claim I'd been "invited" by the bank to use the card?
Why is the error with one of the new MPs? Can it not be a mistake by one of the more experienced MPs?
Who are you covering for? Who paid you off?
I do like your theory. It is very possible and realistic.One could also ask if Malcolm Allen received the e-mail. If your speculaiton is correct, Malcolm Allen would not have recieved the e-mail at the address that had the error.
Very nice theory! Seems quite plausable, indeed.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
You are onto something here I believe Sara.
Just ask Glen Clark about what I'm talking about.
You got the answer Paul.
As it looks as if this is going criminal I doubt we will know the answer soon as they will keep it under wraps while they create their case.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Well Sara you are a star along with the rabble gang cause we just got billing on National Newswatch - good sloothing. National Newswatch Aggregator. Source of NDP Caucus leak fingered?
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
I"m wondering if this is true and Mike Allen (con MP) went online to do a hook-up, and there was a roll-call, does it mean that Mike Allen impersonated Malcolm Allen? Just wondering because that could be a offence. Just wondering.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
I'm not sure what the law is in Canada on secretly recording telephonic conversations, but even if the guy was invited to participate, I would think that, by itself, would not give him the right to record the call without the other participants' consent.
I agree with you Josh. But let's not get distracted. The prize is a coalition govt.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
What I want to know is was Harper told about this in advance and did he approve of the eavesdropping and taping?
josh, the law here is that a conversation can be recorded as long as ONE participant in the conversation knows that it's being recorded.
However, what I want to know is this - did Mike Allen actually "participate" in the conversation? Or did he secretly listen in? If he didn't say anything and no one knew he was there, then he wasn't "participating," even if he was supposedly "invited".
And sgm had an excellent point too - would Mike Allen also use a neighbour's credit card that was mailed to him by accident?
So, for instance, let's say I invite three people to an in-person meeting. Two people show up. The third person hides in the closet, doesn't let us know he's there, and he secretly tapes our whole conversation without us knowing he's there.
The fact that he was INVITED to that meeting certainly doesn't give him the right to do that. Just because you're invited doesn't mean you are a participant at the meeting.
What I want to know is what you are meeting about that would make it WORTHWHILE to hide in a closet and tape you!
The news this am is all about Harper corrupting the PMO by this action, Brison is literally carrying the Harper=Nixon ball with this, and I have watched 3 different news reports defaming the CPC and Harper over this action. The CTV tried to cut Brison off, didn't work.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Michelle, I thought we weren't supposed to talk about what oldgoat did at the last babble moderators meeting.
Um, I mean, yes, great hypothetical example that you completely made up that never happened.
I am not impressed with the brazen admission by the conservatives that they bugged a private meeting...taping public meetings is one thing, but private meetings is against the law. The conservatives have proved over and over again that they don't respect the law and have problems interpreting the law , so this doesn't surprise me. Liberals and NDP might want to start thinking of counter surveillance techniques to deal with the conservative threat of eavesdropping on private meetings.
Again invest in counter surveillance equipment and never carry on a conversation that is visible from the radome on top of the US embassy. Remember the garage doors mysteriously opening and closing in the Ottawa area before the republicans and conservatives ousted Martin?....cutting edge infrared bugging equipment ....it also happened in test areas in the US.
josh, the law here is that a conversation can be recorded as long as ONE participant in the conversation knows that it's being recorded.
However, what I want to know is this - did Mike Allen actually "participate" in the conversation? Or did he secretly listen in? If he didn't say anything and no one knew he was there, then he wasn't "participating," even if he was supposedly "invited".
That appears to be the key:
Canada requires "one-party notification" - only one person in the
conversation needs to be aware that the conversation is being taped.
In other words, the person taping the conversation must be
participating in it.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=320423
It will then come down to a question of fact; everyone else's word against the taper's. I'm sure it is highly unlikely that he participated in the conversation.
Well, if he taped the meeting, then it'll be clear that he did not participate in it. Because they'll be able to hear that he didn't.
That's true, assuming he taped the meeting in its entirety.
One doesnt have to speak in order to participate in a meeting. And there is enough of a sliver of a justification in the fact that he was "invited" to cover his ass. I don't think its really actionable, but it might be hayable.
The argument would be that the invitation and the log in would be sufficient proof of participation.
I've been on dozens of calls where I only had to listen to the conversation.
I don't think that it's right, but I think it's legal.
Well the NDP were able to make hay with it. even if it turn out to be legal. But what about rules for the HoC etc?
---------------------------------------------------------
why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?
A point that is being made frequently over at the Macleans.ca boards is that he could NOT have been invited (nor could he ever believe himself to be invited) to a Caucus meeting of another party.
No-one believes that he was invited. He doesn't believe that he was invited, or he would have answered the roll-call and participated. He knew that he was not invited; he or his staff phoned in anyway; taped the conversation; and released it. Thus, no-one could believe that the NDP would have invited him either.
This is unparliamentary at a minimum, and probably illegal.
Well, [it seems like] it was John Duncan who received the email by mistake. However, nice work.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Yes, it is now confirmed that the NDP believe that Conservative MP John Duncan was the one that mistakenly received the conference call info (presumably a mix up with Linda Duncan):
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/546662
I guess J and L are fairly close on the keyboard leading to this error. I do wish I could edit my thread title to take my accusation away from Mike Allen. My apologies to Mr. Allen for jumping to the conclusion that he was the source.
On the point of an invitation-- they can't happen by accident- this is like opening someone else's mail. An invitation is asking someone to participate- and it is not transferable not by accident or otherwise.
Second a participant can be someone who is listening. I attend conference calls where I just listen but the point is of course the roll call and that is the difference-- you are not participating unless they know you are there and that is the point. So since he did not admit to being in the call at the time which would have given the others the chance to continue or not, he was essentially spying.
That is beyond disgusting. I do hope he goes to jail.
As this could be construed as an illegal tap...whats more alarming is the use of the info to discredit political opponents from high up..this is espionage. The intent is to bring down the NDP or coalition, a legal political party.
Yep the law gives one a long rope to hang themselves and I think Harper has just tightened the noose.
Espionage
Or at the very least conspiracy to do all kinds of criminal acts
The news reported here in that it is a serious breach by Harper and that the RCMP were investigating.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Do we know if it was really John Duncan who was listening in or did he pass the code etc on to some hack in the PMO's office.
John Duncan beat an NDP incumbent by 2,500 votes in the October election. He's really doing the people that put faith in him proud
Given what we know, the taping of the teleconference was probably legal.
Ethics, however, isn't just about legality. Lawyers use the concept of "sharp practice" - where a lawyer goes right to the edge without breaking the rules. Lawyers who become known for sharp practice are not generally held in high regard by the profession.
Harper et al seem to live on that edge constantly.
No, given what we know, the the taping was probably illegal and disseminating it was even more so.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
I thought this post by Kady O'Malley on her blog was useful in understanding the legality:
NOVEMBER 30, 2008
ATTENTION: MEDIA
RE: PHONE TAP OF NDP CAUCUS MEETING
Based on the advice of legal council, the New Democratic Party is sending this note out to members of the media.
************************************************
Today’s news reports that a member of the Conservative Party
intercepted and electronically recorded a private communication
restricted to members of the NDP caucus raises serious questions as to
whether this activity contravened the Criminal Code of Canada. The
caucus meeting was intended to be confidential as were the
communications that took place during the meeting. The only intended
recipients were the members of the NDP caucus. It appears that the
call-in number was inadvertently sent to a Conservative MP.
We have been given legal advice that any reasonable person who was
inadvertently given access to the call would have understood that he or
she was not invited to listen to the communication or to record it. The
continued possession of any such recording may also be an offence under
the Criminal Code.
The New Democratic Party would request that anyone in possession of
the recording to turn it over to the Office of the Commissioner of the
RCMP for use in any subsequent investigation.
For your information the provisions of the Criminal Code are set out below.
Criminal Code
PART VI: INVASION OF PRIVACY
Interception of Communications
s. 183. “private communication” means any oral communication, or any
telecommunication, that is made by an originator who is in Canada or is
intended by the originator to be received by a person who is in Canada
and that is made under circumstances in which it is reasonable for the
originator to expect that it will not be intercepted by any person
other than the person intended by the originator to receive it, and
includes any radio-based telephone communication that is treated
electronically or otherwise for the purpose of preventing intelligible
reception by any person other than the person intended by the
originator to receive it;
Interception
184. (1) Everyone who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic,
mechanical or other device, willfully intercepts a private
communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Saving provision
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied,
of the originator of the private communication or of the person
intended by the originator thereof to receive it;
I think it's pretty clear that it was illegal after reading that, however I am no legal expert.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Should the RCMP choose to investigate, lawyers say a key point will be whether the e-mail was sent to Mr. Duncan intentionally. The relevant section of the Criminal Code says a conversation can be recorded with the consent of one of the intended recipients of the information being discussed. People who are known to be part of the discussion can give themselves that consent. That is why it is legal for reporters, for instance, to record telephone interviews without the knowledge of the person being interviewed.
But Mr. Shore said outsiders cannot give themselves permission to record a phone conversation without the approval of at least one of the people intended to take part in the call.
What will have to be determined is whether, Mr. Duncan is an outsider, given that he received the e-mail notification of the conference call and information on how to dial in.
http://tinyurl.com/6rdh8x
Hello, Steve? I just mistakenly got an invite to the NDP caucas conference call. Should I just ignore it?
God, no - get on, keep your mouth shut and tape it.
Then what?
We use it to prove a party's dishonestly, lack of integrity and unworthiness to lead, hee, hee.
That's a good point Sara - why can't you?
Yes, it is now confirmed that the NDP believe that Conservative MP John Duncan was the one that mistakenly received the conference call info (presumably a mix up with Linda Duncan):
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/546662
I guess J and L are fairly close on the keyboard leading to this error. I do wish I could edit my thread title to take my accusation away from Mike Allen. My apologies to Mr. Allen for jumping to the conclusion that he was the source.
NorthReport, you"re asking why I can't edit the thread title?
It seems to be a bug with the new software that users can't edit the frist post in a thread they create, only their subsequent replies. Only moderators can edit first posts and titles. I didn't want to buig a moderator to do this for me.
It seems to me that the e-mail was like faxes that get sent out. If it isn't meant for you even honest people inform the person sending it that they received it inadvertently and shred it. The Conservatives didn't just fail to ignore the norms of ethics they deliberately taped it for partisan purposes. It is symbolic of why the other three parties cannot trust Harper and thus have no confidence in a government led by him. __________________________________________________________________________________________ A Sight to See: Harpo Hoisted on His Own Petard
I have to say that while I've never been a real believer in electoral politics and I'm not as excited about this coalition as some people, if Harper were to go to jail or even face a sponsorship-type investigation on top of being ousted as PM I would have to do a little dance.
According to the Globe and Mail, the Mounties are finally investigating the secret recording:
"OTTAWA -- The RCMP interviewed Jack Layton's chief of staff and other NDP aides this week in response to the party's complaint that Conservatives secretly recorded one of their private caucus meetings last fall.
Not 1 mention of this in the news here either!
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Even if there is an investigation, or charges or even a conviction, it won't matter to the public. It will matter to some NDP supporters and to those who believe in justice, but this isn't going to have a watergate effect that taints the CPC.
The public has already judged the CPCs actions as distasteful, but typical of politics and politicians. As there is no level of trust between politicians and the public, nobody is truly shocked that the CPC used bottom feeder tactics.
The public have been spun that the NDP had a secret deal with the BQ and they disapprove of this action no matter its source or accuracy. The NDP have been flat footed in response.
People don't care that the CPC enjoyed BQ company, what the public view is a formal signing on television with the BQ, and a discredited LPC leader trying to claim the throne and they do not like it.
The LPC have switched from an idiot to a new leader who has managed to avoid the CPC attacks thus far.
But the NDP are weak on all fronts because of the coalition breakdowns and an inability to respond to changes that have occured since the signing.
All that people get in the press is that the CPC exposed an NDP/BQ backroom deal and nothing else. If the CPC get wacked for it, the public will think it was worth the price.
The NDP is silent. Do they expect to be vindicated by the RCMP and then release the details of their BQ discussions prior to the coalition?
who cares if they did. Its not as if all parties don't talk to each other all the time.
Even if there is an investigation, or charges or even a conviction, it won't matter to the public. It will matter to some NDP supporters and to those who believe in justice, but this isn't going to have a watergate effect that taints the CPC.
If you have a turd thrown at you, most people would wipe it off and wash up, not pretend it doesn't exist or that you don't stink.
Of course all parties talk to each other. So, tell me, have the CPC made an excellent assault on the NDP/BQ connection. And while other parties talk, the NDP is the first to have a signed agreement and photo op with the BQ.
The majority of Canadians have taken a 2nd look at the NDP and its association with the BQ. Many who voted NDP were not happy with either association, be it the BQ as a party or Dion as a leader.
If you can demonstrate some positive polling for the NDP from this "coalition" and the photo opp arrangement, I would be happy to entertain it.
The LPC are rising in the polls because they are distancing themselves from the NDP. They are not wearing the smear campaign of the BQ association.
Why is this?
It is because the NDP are on tape talking about their discussions with the BQ. ON tape it doesn't sound like much of anything, but the CPC have molded it to fit their spin and the NDP spin is the one that goes down the drain.
Again....
What benefit does the NDP expect to gain from proving that the CPC behave like the CPC?
Do you expect those positive NDP numbers outwest where they outpointed the LPC to continue?
As for the media not allowing the issue to resurface? Exactly what has the NDP provided the media?
The NDP needed to clarify those Taped words, and put them in context instead of allowing the CPC to shape the intent and meaning of those previous discussions.
Even the BQ could provide an explanation to those discussions if they so chose.
However, looking at the recent polls, it is NDP and BQ down, CPC and LPC up.
So, again Stockholme if you don't care and the NDP doesn't care, continue to ride the slide.
You can call it boneheadedness or whatever..ignorance of the law is no excuse. The conservatives have proved over and over again they can't interpret the law and have a hard time following it. If this was fifty years ago they would be lined up in front of a firing squad and shot for espionage.
The law is pretty clear..if it's not a public meeting there is an expectation of privacy. If it was a public meeting it would be a differant story.
Don't expect the rcmp to step on conservative toes ..they have already proved they are corrupt and probably due to the tory appointed commisioner. They have failed to act on the cadman affair(bribery) the election in/out schemes (fraud) to name a few.
The conservatives broke the law of the land, if anybody is boneheaded , it's the BONEHEADED Canadians that keep electing the criminal bastards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user
The media hasn't reported too much about this because there's not much of a story yet. They reported that the NDP raised the matter with the RCMP, and there've been a couple of briefs about the RCMP interviewing parties before deciding whether to launch an investigation.
If something breaks in the investigation, or charges are laid, THAT will be news and will be pretty widely covered. Of course different outlets will put a different spin on things, but they'll cover it alright.
We should just keep calling it the Nixonian trick it was.
Also, Harper should be called out for raising the stakes in the national unity file.
Actually the NDP is very stable in the polls. According to nanos, we are at 19% which is actually higher than what we got in the last election.
To the extent that the Liberals have gained any ground in the polls, it has nothing to do with any perceived "distance" from the coalition, but rather the small detail that they substituted a ridiculously unpopular leader for a new leader who is relatively unknown but who is getting some short term fawning media attention and who people can project whatever good qualities they want onto.
The way to kill off the threat of Quebec sovereignty is to form alliances with the BQ and make Quebecers see that there are many people in the rest of Canada who are also progressive on the issues. This is a case where the BQ is ready to unfurl a white flag of surrender, they are willing to support a federal government for 18 months unconditionally. What's not to like.
My fear is that a year or two more of harper and his neo-fascist policies that make Quebecers in particular want to vomit will do more to stimulate support for sovereignty than anything else.
What's good for progressives in English Canada is also good for Quebec and that helps BUILD national unity.
What Stockholm said.
Couldn't have said it any better myself.
I agree with both Stock and OO here.
"What's good for progressives in English Canada is also good for Quebec and that helps BUILD national unity."______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!