- If It Looks Like A Harper and It Smells Like A Harper Can We Really Be Surprised If It Is A Harper

Submitted: 8:46am & 9:11am, PST, 12 Feb.'11 The Toronto Star
Professors fight back in information war, Susan Delacourt Ottawa Bureau, The Toronto Star, 11 Feb.'11,
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/937569--professors-fight-back-in-information-war?bn=1

"The federal Conservative party has said, through spokesman Fred DeLorey, that it is not behind the file-hunting expedition. Dimitri Soudas, communications director for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said 'the PMO did not file these freedom of information requests,' though he added: 'There’s nothing wrong with filing such requests, media and all Canadians can do it under the law'"

It is common knowledge that Harper and the Con's simply can't be taken at his, or their, word. Harper simply can't be trusted.

Harper and the Con Party denying that they made the access to information (ATI) requests means nothing.

In fact, their statements are so narrow that it suggests that they may very well have knowledge of them. It also does not mean that they are not intending to use them or benefit from their use or if any an opportunity arose in the future that they wouldn't use it.

Dimitri Soudas “There’s nothing wrong with filing such requests, media and all Canadians can do it under the law”

Another clue is that whenever Harper is caught in an embarrassing situation, he always claims that "it's ok, everyone else does it". Coming out up front with this kind of statement suggests they may very well have some knowledge of it, some kind of involvement.

Of course, one need only apply the rule - if you want to know who is responsible, look at who benefits.

The chances that they are not politically motivated are remote. If you get that far there is no other political faction in Canada that could possibly benefit than Harper and eth Con's.

Also, it is the type of thing that you would expect from right-wing extremists and falls perfectly in line with the Harper style of extremist politics where vicious personal attacks on people's characters, insult, insinuation, bold, emotionally charged insinuation and allegation are the name of the game

It is clear from this article that the information requested, to a very large extent, is outside that covered by the ATI and that it was politically motivated and intended for very questionable purposes.

If the information requested it is not covered by ATI then why would the Act require the names of the person requesting it be confidential, or at least to the extent that the information requested is not covered by the Act.

If the information is outside the Act then in that regard it is as if I had received the request and why would I be required to not reveal the requestor. Also, if the University won't simply release it why couldn't someone, or at least the subject of the request, do an Access To Information Request to get it.

It seems like a non sequitur that someone could request all that personal information about a person but not have to reveal to that person whom they are.

Surely Parliament could not have intended the name of the requestor, especially to the extent the request is outside the Act, be considered confidential vis-a-vis the person who is the subject of the request.

Since, as we can see, this allows for serious abuse. If so, this is an aspect of the law that ought to be reviewed.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html