An unhealthy culture of secrecy and spin-doctoring Stephen Hume Special to the Sun Wednesday, November 07, 2007 Democracy can be plainly defined as government by collective consent of the governed. Consent requires free access to the information upon which those holding delegated authority base their decisions. By definition, then, no genuine democracy conducts its affairs in secret. Yes, there are rare occasions when national security, fair judicial process, protection for vulnerable individuals and public safety may require temporary confidentiality. But governments which routinely obstruct access to information regarding the reasons for -- and consequences of -- their administrative actions are frustrating public discussion of policy and its merits or failings. If it's not possible for the public to engage in intelligent debate over what government is doing or not doing on its behalf, then it's not possible for those citizens to make informed decisions at the ballot box about who should govern. Recent events in British Columbia point to an unhealthy political culture of secrecy, deception by omission, misleading half-truths, disingenuous dissimulation and sleazy spin-doctoring that grows on our provincial government like black mould. For those who missed it, Lindsay Kines of the Victoria Times-Colonist requested a report completed last year assessing the province's program for intervening to assist sexually abused children. When Kines finally got the document -- he had to obtain it with a freedom of information request -- it had been censored, apparently on grounds that revealing the blacked-out bits would harm the financial or economic interests of a public body. Kines, diligent reporter that he is, also obtained an uncensored copy of the report and was thus able to compare the two documents. What the comparison showed should be of enormous concern to every voter. The censor had removed not comments that might expose individuals but those comments that reflected unfavorably upon the government's performance. In particular, the censor struck passages which showed that agencies helping sexually abused children felt, to use Kines's words, "neglected, isolated and short-changed by government" and were unanimous that the funding was insufficient. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Children and Family Development was spending $560,000 on a luxurious redesign of its executive offices. The specifics are troubling enough. They automatically invite the question of what one should make of a government that appears to give higher priority to the comforts of its executives than it does to the well-being of sexually abused children supposedly under its protection. Not to mention the government's odious attempt to hide the unadorned facts of these self-evident priorities from the public that consents to the taxes that pay the bills. But this story raises a bigger issue in a broader context. Almost a month ago, Colin Gabelmann, the former NDP cabinet minister who in 1992 led a drive for freedom of information legislation, told The Vancouver Sun his initiative had failed under successive governments. Instead of fostering transparency and openness, Gabelmann said, funding to support freedom of information requests had been systematically reduced by both the NDP and the Liberals, while government officials and civil servants continue to "throttle" public access with interminable delays and onerous charges. That assessment is amplified by information and privacy commissioner David Loukidelis's recent observation that government record-keeping is in disarray and that B.C. needs laws requiring public servants to document their deliberations, actions and decisions. As I noted in a column last week, even our provincial archive is under-resourced and subject to a hare-brained policy of raising revenue for the Royal B.C. Museum, under whose jurisdiction it now falls, by charging the public for accessing and using records for which its taxes have already paid. The archive descends to shabby part-time status even as the museum mounts glitzy -- and costly -- entertainment spectacles. All this adds up to a collective abuse of the spirit and intent of legislation that was intended to foster a culture of transparency and openness These stories of censorship, secrecy and the plight of the archive are evidence that government is less interested in empowering public discourse than it is in suffocating criticism. That amounts to an assault upon the democratic process itself. Thoughtful citizens permit it at their peril. © The Vancouver Sun 2007
Posts
