No announcement yet.

Hypocrisy Indeed - Bridge Protestor from Edmonton works for the City of Edmonton

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    I don't know where people get the idea that being a "hypocrite is fine." Where I was born and raised - Alberta - that is not a trait to be admired in the slightest.
    I'm not seeing how he's a hypocrite in the context of his former employment with the CoE, given the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. Could you please explain?

    Definition: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel His hypocrisy was finally revealed with the publication of his private letters.; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

    So what belief/virtue/religion was he feigning in contradiction of his true beliefs? Are CoE employees required to sign or recite some sort of Pledge of Allegiance to the oil/energy industry that I'm unaware of? I don't support the protest and am more than happy to see them prosecuted. But as far as hypocrisy goes, I'm not sure how that specifically applies to him because he's a CoE employee. Or are you saying that anyone who protests against the energy industry while not living a 100% zero carbon lifestyle is a hypocrite, and therefore whether or not he was a CoE employee is irrelevant?


    • #32
      A related concern is that the very role that this person has is superfluous to what a COE could be focusing on and is not even very remotely attached to what priorities would be congruent for most Edmontonians.

      Basically another pie in the sky initiative and program and lets get all our energy from farting and pedaling bikes and support sustainable bs. This is the kind of programming and mindset your City of Edmonton is sponsoring;

      Now if this position, and a whole program like this were eliminated what loss would even be noticed?

      One after another of needless measure overkill from the city setting up individual programs like this that in themselves could be said to be incongruent. Does each initiative really require a program team and program head? Bureaucracy at its finest.

      So I'm really curious about this. Did the Edmonton protestors car pool to Vancouver, or take the Via rail train, or even cycle there (that would be consistent...) or did they use multiple vehicles and or a flight to get there. Keeping in mind that even driving there round trip, in one vehicle was a use of fossil fuels. The article noted they "travelled there" This would be investigative, and fitting, to describe how they travelled. It would denote either consistency, or inconsistency. The interesting thing is countless people in social media have questioned the form of transportation used by the protestors to get to Burnaby. Why is our media not asking about that? Ftr, no, they did not Cycle, or walk to Burnaby, alas, they used fossil fuels to get there.

      Of note this protest action also resulted in the dispatching of several police cars and police boats, consuming fossil fuels, resources, and costing money. For a symbolic and futile gesture of civil disobedience.

      Also to remind this is an active Green Peace protestor who has been involved in several other protests requiring police and resource intervention. Often by the COE and at COE resource and expense. For instance putting similar signs up on HLB in Edmonton, involvement in Occupy Edmonton years ago. Where are the journalists in questioning why COE, an Oil and Gas City if ever there was one, hiring active and ongoing Greenpeace members and protest participants for COE marketing positions?

      It took me 15 minutes to uncover several past protest involvements that would be arguably a conflict with his COE hiring.
      Last edited by Replacement; 10-07-2018, 03:39 PM.
      "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"


      • #33
        Perhaps the greatest irony is we have here a U of A Mining Engineering graduate protesting pipelines, and that was employed by the COE to support renewable energy and limit use of non renewable resources. Wait, what? No inconsistency there..

        The same person also has traveled a bit. This too easily found online. How is that reconciled in his belief system?
        Last edited by Replacement; 10-07-2018, 03:53 PM.
        "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"


        • #34
          OK, so nobody involved with the city, either as an elected representative, employee or contractor is permitted to say anyhting negative about the oil, gas or coal industries on pain of losing their jobs. Do I have that right?

          What other industries would you include in that list?


          • #35
            Another update. The COE ex employee is now calling any opposition to the stunt "trolling", Is claiming that the "National Broadcast Corporation" (lol) is biased and got him fired. He's also blaming, angry that people (trolls) made the connection at all to his employment with COE, and the protest stunt, and calling him out on it. So it seems as if the individual quit under duress or suggestion.

            But lets remember that this is the COE "Social Marketing Coordinator" busy calling people that disagree with him "trolls" online. I'll leave the readers to gauge if this is behavior of merit for such a position. Anybody can check his twitter account or other social media accounts. He's basically burning himself online with his comments.

            But in general his social media accounts, use of language, decorum are very inappropriate and not conducive to such employment representing the COE. Is it interesting that A COE hiring of a "Social marketing coordinator" and which even cites the use of online media in the job description did not even check his activity online. Because if they did this hire should certainly not have occurred.
            Last edited by Replacement; 10-07-2018, 04:20 PM.
            "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"


            • #36
              Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
              Should groups like MADD and Alcoholics Anonymous lose their government funding because their efforts lead to fewer people drinking which is a major source of revenue for the province and the country? Should stores be required to sell tobacco products because it's taxed as well? What about people who buy electric cars? Should they be fired for not supporting the oil industry?
              Unlike MADD, Alcoholics Anonymous receives no money whatsoever from any level of government or industry. No one can donate except members. Basically they pass a basket for a silver or bill collection.

              This is in accordance with their 7th Tradition which states:

              7. Every AA Group ought to be fully self supporting, declining outside contributions.

              It is exactly the same with Cocaine Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Crystal Meth Anonymous et al.


              • #37
                I stand corrected. However, there are other groups that are dedicated to helping people with alcoholism. Apparently they should also be fired because liquor taxes help support such programs, at least according to the OP.


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Replacement View Post
                  Originally posted by Alex.L View Post
                  Let's just reset here for a minute. This guy was an employee of the city. He wasn't elected. He's simply an employee. If he wants to be a hypocrite (if that's what he is), then that's fine. The city can't and shouldn't be expected to screen applicants for entry-mid level jobs to the point where they're grilling them about their ethical concerns and leanings. His was not a political job. He's just some dude earning a paycheck just like Joe Sixpack swinging a weed-whacker around on a boulevard. Should every employee of the City Of Edmonton have to support everything the city does to such a degree that they even have to support industries in the rest of the Province because they are beneficial to the city's bottom line?

                  No. This is ridiculous. If he's still an employee he should be reprimanded/disciplined appropriately for the legal implications caused by his decisions. His stance on Oil (or any other beliefs) should have no bearing on anything work-related unless he's actively using his status as an employee, or his position, to push those beliefs and ethical leanings on others. As far as I can tell he wasn't wearing an "I WORK FOR THE CITY OF EDMONTON" t-shirt. That information came out as part of the media scrutinizing the protestors.

                  ironically the ex employee was a "Social marketing coordinator" who of course IS representing the city, even with "marketing coordinator" in his job title. Did you even read the article or just stopping by with one size fits all formulaic response?

                  Next, the employee HIMSELF recognized the conflict of interest inherent in his roles and accordingly QUIT.

                  You are correct that your post was ridiculous.
                  I did read it. Did his personal views skew official city posts as a social media coordinator? Pretty unlikely. While that sounds like a job that would be In charge of direct postings on various media, I'm confident that he would have been coordinating timing of posts on various platforms, ensuring continuity and managing the pre-edited messages during events, construction, etc. not writing them.

                  Good that he recognized and took action on it, but as was pointed out above it's likely that move was purposeful in order to add to his profile for the inevitable news story.

                  Again, he's a hypocrite, but that's really nobody's concern except his and his direct supervisor's.