There are plenty of questions that employers are legally prohibited from asking during a job interview. These laws are in place to prevent discrimination, and to help ensure that a hiring decision is not based on criteria that is not pertinent to the job. For instance, an employer may not ask if you own a vehicle; this would prohibit those who lack the funds to purchase and maintain a vehicle from being hired to a position for which they are entirely suited. The new trend of prospective employers demanding their applicant’s Facebook password goes far beyond the limits of inappropriate job interview questions, and into a territory on par with illegal surveillance.

I have nothing to hide; I conduct myself with the utmost integrity in my personal life as well as professionally. But what these employers are asking is the equivalent of tapping your phone, going through your mail, searching your house, following you around town, and eavesdropping on any and all conversations that you have with your friends and family. I would not work for any company advocating such a gross invasion of privacy.

In fact, not only is it an invasion of your privacy, it’s an invasion of the privacy of your friends and family. These people have explicitly opted to share certain information with you specifically. By giving someone else access to your account, your friends’ and family’s information is compromised. Would Aunt Vivian have been so candid about her colon cancer if she knew that your conversation together was going to be shared with a stranger? Would your best friend have been so open about her court case if she knew that the information would be accessible by strangers rummaging through your account?

Facebook is built on its privacy settings. It has taken a lot of heat over the years because it doesn’t do enough to protect peoples’ private information, and because the privacy controls have been confusing. But people use it with the understanding that they can share specific information with only the people they choose. If they wish not to make their entire lives public, that is their right. What these employers are asking is a violation of Facebook’s Terms of Service, it breaks the trust between you and your loved ones, and it breaks the trust between you and Facebook.

Facebook monetizes our social information in aggregate–they have made little effort to hide this. When providing your information to Facebook, you are inherently granting them permission to do so in exchange for the service they provide. However, this information is largely anonymous. No one is taking note that you, Brian Jones, vote for the Green Party, are a devout Catholic, have a tattoo of a dolphin on your thigh, and dote on your niece. Instead, Facebook will share the information that a certain number of males, aged 18-25, located in your area, have a certain general set of browsing habits. You will see targeted ads, but these are automated. Likewise, the information that you post will not be shared with just anyone in your Friends list; you have granular control over how this information is shared. Despite questions about the integrity of Facebook, people still expect that their private information will remain private.

If you have made information about yourself publicly available online, an employer can certainly take that information into account when making a hiring decision. But if you have private, password-protected information that just so happens to be accessible via the internet, that does not give an employer the right to demand access to that information. Labour laws need to be updated to reflect new technologies before these practices become more commonplace, and Facebook itself needs to be more active in speaking out against this if they want their users to feel comfortable using the service.

Times are tough, and beggars can’t be choosers. If it came down to “hand over the password or starve”, I suppose I would delete my account on principle. Then again, they could just opt to snoop though my house and follow me around town.

Except, no, there are laws against those.

In 1991, Jack Layton co-founded the White Ribbon Campaign to end violence against women.

Many disagreed with his politics, but few could help but admire the man for his integrity, his positive enthusiasm, and the way he genuinely cared for all people. He connected with them on a personal level. He reached out to young people who were alienated by other politicians. Across the country, even in the conservative heartland, people are gathering in memory, leaving testaments like “Jack Layton was the reason I started voting” and “He is the reason I became engaged in politics again.”

Layton showed Canada what it could be; he showed it that, in an age of cynicism, there is still room for hope. He was unwavering in his ideals and principles, and fought tirelessly to bring about his vision of an equal and just society.

Layton made tremendous successes through what seemed like sheer force of will. He led positive campaigns when other parties relied on attack ads and vitriol. He was passionate and determined without hostility or malice. Where Chretien and Harper had beaten back the Bloc by demonizing them, Layton brought the country together through his joy and optimism.

During his acceptance speech as the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, he quoted Tommy Douglas, saying, “Dream no little dream.” He overcame the odds, time and again. And he never backed down, no matter what.

Those of us who shared his passion for social democracy saw him as the very embodiment of those virtues he extolled. He did for this country what we all longed to do. So, with his passing, I am all too aware of how sorely people like him are needed.

I can’t help but think of Joe Hill’s farewell message: “Don’t mourn; organize.”

Thanks for everything, Jack.

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.
– Jack Layton’s last letter to Canadians

See also:
Jack Layton’s last letter to Canadians
Jack Layton remembered as ‘courageous’
The National: Jack Layton 1950-2011 (Video)
Six ways Jack Layton helped build Toronto

It’s a collection of resources for taking action, and links to articles for staying informed.

According to a recent article from the Wire Report, the CRTC has been opposed to the changes from the beginning; however, they continue to be pressed by a parliamentary committee. I thought the following was worth noting:

“[T]he serious harm that could result from the broadcast of false news is more foreseeable and potentially more serious than the harm that could result from the publication of false statements or tales not even held out as news and distributed by means other than broadcasting,” the letter, signed by John Keogh, the CRTC’s senior legal counsel, said.

“There is a reach and immediacy to the broadcasting industry that means that news bulletins heard by large audiences may not be subject to timely, independent verification. Moreover, at least in Canada, where prohibitions on false news have long been part of the tradition of regulation, there is a high level of public trust in what is broadcast as news by the licensees regulated by the Commission.”

Not only does this give broadcasters agency to further misinform the public, it permits them to lie outright. The day’s top story could legally be completely fictional. The only instance where they might be held accountable is if you can prove that the story directly endangered an individual’s life, health, or safety.

These regulations would set the stage for American-style news broadcasts in which the facts would be distorted to suit the corporation that presents them, and the news would place a distant second or third to the entertainment/shock value of the program.

In the United States, the standard for broadcast journalism used to be Walter Cronkite. Now, the most-watched news network is Fox News. Fox News gains viewers by affirming their existing beliefs, then feeding into their fears with misleading information presented as truth. The proposed changes from the CRTC would make Canada’s standards even lower than those of the US.

I don’t believe that it is a coincidence that this proposal comes just as the new right-wing Sun TV News, dubbed by many as “Fox News North”, is about to launch. Investigations are underway, but no one can uncover who actually pushed for the CRTC to make this change. However, the CRTC’s new, under-qualified, vice-chair of broadcasting was appointed allegedly because of his close ties to Harper.

If you look at the current media environment in the US, I think it’s easy to agree that this sort of hate-fuelled discourse results in a culture that is fearful and angry. Regardless of your politics, false news is bad for everyone.

This proposal was presented quickly and quietly. The deadline for public comments to the CRTC has just passed, but the proposal can still be stopped.

I’ve created the following website where you can find links for more information, and ways to easily make your voice heard: www.canadiansfortruth.ca

I urge you to contact your local MP, the CRTC, the federal party leaders, and major news organizations. I will be doing more in the coming days and would appreciate any feedback or suggestions you may have.

Thank you for reading.

Take action
Sign the Petition
Find out more

Let me start again.

Stephen Harper is a bad economist. Rather than supporting this country with the economic stimulus it needs, he has chosen to make partisan attacks and settle old grudges. He acts as a dictator, running on tactics and deception, rather than the leader of a minority government who relies on the support of Parliament. So, having again failed to receive a majority government, he devised a plan to destroy the opposition by proposing the elimination of public subsidies for political parties. While saving the government a measly $27 million dollars, this would effectively cripple the opposition parties. The Conservatives, receiving a large portion of their funds from the private sector, would be the only party financially able to run a strong campaign and otherwise support themselves. Talk about cartoonish villainy.

Consequently, as the already broken Liberals lay in the corner, about to receive the final blow, they did the only thing they could: band together with everyone else.

coalition-protest---3 by preciouskhyatt on Flickr / used with permission

The proposed coalition has sparked a great deal of controversy among Canadians, many of whom mistakenly believe it to be a “coup d’état” or somehow “unconstitutional”. The Conservatives are well aware that few Canadians understand how their own government works and have encouraged myths such as that the Prime Minister was elected directly by the people, that this is an affront to democracy, and that the country will be torn apart by separatists and fly into chaos. Stephen Harper went on television and declared as much, demonizing the Bloc and escalating this situation into a national unity crisis.

In perfect spin-journalism fashion, CTV, among others, has taken to repeating the rhetoric spouted by the Conservative propaganda machine, rather than reporting the news from an objective standpoint. It’s no wonder people are confused.

While the coalition is between the Liberals and the NDP, the Bloc is agreeing to offer support for at least 18 months, so as to create the 163 seats needed to maintain the confidence of the House. Does the Bloc’s involvement pose any sort of threat? Not likely. No allowances for the status of Quebec were made while negotiating the terms, and it is unlikely that such demands will be made. Should the Bloc suddenly go berserk, as Harper claims, the coalition would be dissolved and an election would be called. Many people forget that the Bloc Quebecois are not solely a separatist party; they are a social democratic party and receive votes for a multitude of reasons. Not only has separatism had little support as of late, the Bloc Quebecois didn’t even campaign on it in the last election.

In 2004, during the Martin government, Harper signed a similar agreement with the NDP and the Bloc, hoping to take power as a coalition. He didn’t seem very worried back then.

As for being somehow “unconstitutional”, the Canadian Constitution does not even make reference to a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is chosen when a single member of Parliament, usually the leader of the party with the most seats, has the confidence of the House. Canadians vote for nothing more than the member of Parliament in their local constituency. The members of Parliament are not changing; this is merely a shuffling of seats.

Could a coalition government be stable? Though typical in many countries such as Australia and New Zealand, federal coalition governments are uncommon in Canada; the only one to ever exist was between the Liberals and Conservatives from 1917 to 1921. As an article from the Toronto Star points out, however, a number of successful provincial coalition governments have been carried out as recently as five years ago.

A coalition government does not appear appear fraught with peril, as many believe. It may very well be the stable co-operation of political parties this country needs to effectively prepare for the economic onslaught ahead–something we will not receive from the Conservatives as long as Harper is in charge.

Regardless of whether you want to see a coalition, there is no denying that the situation does not look good for anyone.

Harper has overstepped his bounds a time too many, re-ignited flames of the separatist movement, lost the support that had been gained in Quebec, and many of his own Conservatives have turned against him. He’s demonstrated that he cares not for the welfare of the people of Canada, but rather about his own petty partisan agenda.

The Liberals have bungled their way through the process, consistently being outclassed by the NDP, until finally ousting Dion in favour of a more popular, yet noncommittal, leader.

The NDP look guilty of attempting a power-grab, stating that they would be voting against the budget, regardless of what it was.

The only one without egg on his face is perhaps Gilles Duceppe. The Bloc have now gained additional support from Quebecois who feel alienated or downright offended by Harper’s attacks.

All in all, a coalition sounds like a substantial improvement over our current dictator-style arrangement. But what is the heart of the issue that people have woefully overlooked? Well, Rick said it best, so you may as well hear it from him: