This past week Canadian Member of Parliament Garth Turner was ejected from the Conservative Party Caucus. His expulsion was linked to his blogging. It was suggested that the Prime Minister and his fellow Conservatives were fed up with Turner’s penchant for stating his views on his blog, views which did not always adhere to the Conservative line on key issues.

Some have suggested that this illustrates that blogging is incompatible with government (differentiated from politics.)

I disagree.

I think that the Turner expulsion illustrates that, regardless of medium, people will adhere to rules of membership that they agree with, and that organizations are entitled to withdraw membership from those who fail to live by their group’s rules. In other words, this affair is about the specific approach to control of information adopted by the current Conservative government and the refusal of one independent minded MP to play by those rules.

This same story played out a few years back when the more aggressive supporters of then-Finance Minister Paul Martin would regularly BlackBerry messages to sympathetic reporters with details of secret caucus discussions from inside the room while those very discussions were underway.

In an earlier era (and still today), this story played out in leaks by “unidentified sources” who provided insider information with a large dollop of spin to carefully selected reporters in the hope that the exclusive coverage would tilt strongly to the leaker’s perspective.

What’s different here is that Garth Turner has used his blog to speak openly and forthrightly about his views. He has not used the anonymity of the unidentified leaker to state his positions.

For its part, the Conservative Caucus has responded with the ultimate sanction – banishment. That’s their right. But, unfortunately for them, they’ve tried to spin their move in the traditional command and control way. While Garth Turner appeared on national television facing the cameras straight on with a backdrop of the Canadian flag as he explained his belief that MPs should speak their views clearly and without fear, the most memorable picture of the Conservative Caucus was of a series of hunched backs fleeing the camera and refusing to talk about what had just occurred. From a communications perspective, it was a blow out. Turner wins. (The politicial story, of course, has yet to play out. Turner may ultimately pay a much greater price, perhaps even losing the next election. But that’s for another day…)

Blogging is here to stay. We should recognize that other incidents like this will occur and that the parties will be judged as much by how they react as the blogger will be for what he or she posted. And my money is always on the person who seizes the high ground of honesty, sincerity and transparency.

What do you think?

CBC News Online reports that Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, Rick Hillier, has issued a general order restricting publication of information and images to the Internet by members of Canada’s Armed Forces.

The order notes the risks of posting information or images that might provide insight into the deployment and capabilities of Canadian Forces and that such insight might put those forces at risk. The order requires CF personnel to obtain approval before publishing any military information or images to the Internet.

The complete text of the order is published on a military discussion forum. I am reproducing it in full below because I believe that it is an important reference document for those interested in the development of blogging policies:

R 011318Z SEP 06
FM NDHQ CDS OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 136/06 CDS 050/06
SIC SAK
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ: GUIDANCE ON BLOGS AND OTHER INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS – CF OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES

REFS: A.QR AND O 19.36, 19.37, AND 19.375
B.DAOD 2008-1, 2008-4, AND 2008-6
C.NDSP CHAPTER 30

1. RECENTLY THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE INFORMATION POSTED TO THE INTERNET DESCRIBING THE EXPERIENCES OF CF MEMBERS, PARTICULARLY THOSE DEPLOYED ON OPERATIONS. THESE POSTINGS HAVE INCLUDED COMMENTARIES ON PERSONAL WEBSITES, WEB-LOGS (BLOGS) AND E-MAILS, AND UPLOADED STILL AND VIDEO IMAGERY. THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN POSTED BY CF MEMBERS DEPLOYED ON OPERATIONS OR IN GARRISON, FAMILIES AND ACQUAINTANCES OF CF MEMBERS, EMBEDDED JOURNALISTS AND OTHER MEDIA, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC

2. THIS CANFORGEN IS INTENDED TO ENSURE CF MEMBERS, THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND SPECIALIST ADVISORS AT ALL LEVELS ARE AWARE OF THE RISKS INHERENT IN MAKING SOME TYPES OF INFORMATION OR IMAGERY AVAILABLE TO THE WIDE AUDIENCE USING THE INTERNET, AND OF THE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO PREVENT SUCH RISKS

3. OPERATIONAL SECURITY IS PARAMOUNT. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON ALL CF MEMBERS TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL FOR CREATING RISK TO THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR PEERS, AND THE MISSION BY PUBLISHING INFORMATION TO THE INTERNET. SUCH INFORMATION OR IMAGERY MAY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER INFORMATION, PROVIDE EXPERT ANALYSTS INSIGHTS INTO CF CURRENT OPERATIONS, EQUIPMENT, CAPABILITIES, TACTICS, AND INTENTIONS, OR MAY PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT PUTS PERSONNEL IN SPECIALIST ROLES OR THEIR FAMILIES AT RISK

4. CF MEMBERS ARE TO CONSULT WITH THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND BEFORE PUBLISHING CF-RELATED INFORMATION AND IMAGERY TO THE INTERNET, REGARDLESS OF HOW INNOCUOUS THE INFORMATION MAY SEEM. THE CHAIN OF COMMAND HAS ACCESS TO EXPERT ADVISORS, SUCH AS PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND INTELLIGENCE STAFFS, WHO WILL ENSURE THAT SUCH PUBLISHED INFORMATION IS NOT ULTIMATELY PREJUDICIAL TO CF OPERATIONS AND PERSONNEL

5. CF MEMBERS ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT ANY INFORMATION OR IMAGERY THEY SHARE WITH A THIRD PARTY WHO MAY NOT SHARE CF OPERATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS IS NOT OF SUCH A NATURE THAT IT COULD CREATE RISKS IF PUBLISHED

6. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION OR IMAGERY BY EMBEDDED JOURNALISTS OR OTHER MEDIA IS SUBJECT TO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SUCH MEDIA AND THE RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF, WHO WILL ENSURE THE APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION

7. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE CF TO RESTRICT THE INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDED TO CF MEMBERS AS DESCRIBED IN THE REFERENCES. WITHIN GENERALLY WELL-UNDERSTOOD LIMITS, CF MEMBERS ARE ENTITLED TO COMMUNICATE WITH FRIENDS, FAMILY AND COLLEAGUES, AS ARE ALL CANADIAN CITIZENS

8. THE CF CHAIN OF COMMAND, PARTICULARLY IN A THEATRE OF OPERATIONS, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE INTERNET IF IT IS DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAINING OPERATIONAL SECURITY

9. LEGAL ADVICE ON THIS CANFORGEN IS AVAILABLE TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTORATE OF THE CF LEGAL ADVISOR (CFLA)

The CBC report contains this explanation by a CF spokesman:

“This is something that the military has had to deal with since 2002,” when Canada sent troops to Afghanistan, Lieut. Adam Thomson, an Armed Forces spokesman, told CBC News Online.

He noted the policy has “been a long time in the making.

“We realized that blogs are more influential than we knew,” he said.

At least one observer feels that this policy is heavy handed and sends the signal to Canada’s Forces that “We don’t trust you. If we trusted you, we’d remind you of the security issues, make clear to you that you’ll be disciplined for violations of those security issues, and then let you govern yourself accordingly with limited supervision.”

The Torch points out that the U.S. armed services have taken a different approach. “The key elements are registration of the blog with the chain of command, accountability for any information going up on it, and periodic monitoring by the command for compliance.”