Advocacy end game?

I am concerned about the ‘tone’ of the political discourse in our Province. In particular, voices of dissent. Discussions, articles and stories about people being ‘afraid to speak out’ regarding this government’s policy/budget decisions have been going on for as long as I have been paying attention to politics. I have listened to the conversations but never really thought much if it; I suppose I thought that ‘it ‘s just part of the deal’ of engaging in political commentary. I’m thinking about it now; a great deal.

On May 5th in the Edmonton Journal there was an article by Sheila Pratt called, How the Code of Silence Works . The article has stuck with me for over a month. I ran into some ‘conflicts’ myself recently during my time as a government of Alberta employee. At the same time as being an employee I was also on the Executive of a local non-profit; and on behalf of that non profit (as a parent advocate) I was speaking out publicly about education cuts. I was also very open about my membership with the Alberta Party. As a result, my blogs and emails were being tracked by government officials. Some of my posts were deemed to be ‘unacceptable’ by these government ‘watchers’. I know this because my direct employer in the public service of Alberta was contacted by PR and Communications who in turn called me to advise that my social media posts were of concern. Big Brother was on to me.

From that moment on I realized that though I believed I was performing a professional job of separating my roles with the various organizations I worked on behalf of in order to avoid any ‘conflict’; I had failed. But not because my efforts were insufficient; rather, because my ‘voice of dissent’ had appeared on the government’s radar and they felt compelled to act. 

It is more than a little daunting to have your employer tell you that you are being tracked and as a result to be very careful of what you are saying and writing. In my case I was diligent not to identify myself as a GOA employee when representing other organizations and always had a disclaimer on my blog, twitter and facebook that the views I was sharing were my own. I also had that I worked for the Alberta Government, which I removed upon their request. Shouldn’t that be enough? I notice on twitter that it is not uncommon for Government employees to have a personal twitter page where they do the same as I did and clearly state that the views are their own and also that they work for the government. The difference: they are not speaking out against any government policies. 

This is not just a government issue, I get that. I fully understand that there are companies, outside of government, who are very cautious of what their employees are saying outside of the workplace. Many of us have worked in an environment where we must be very careful of the public roles that we have outside of our employment as we can always be linked back to our place of employment. Many of us do work with non profits and sit on boards, which can become very public roles. We must decide before we accept these positions if this is a conflict for us and for our employer. But then, knowing all this and yet forging ahead and taking on various roles outside of direct employment (in other words, displaying leadership) seems to make some employers, especially government, very uncomfortable. 

To be clear, the ‘official’ discussion with me was predicated on the faux issue of whether my on-line commentary could be linked to me as an employee of the government in some fashion. But of course the reality of the online universe is that with very little effort anyone who wanted to find out could discover that I was a GOA employee.  

The bottom line is that this Conservative government did not want me to have anything on my social media pages or me speaking with media if it countered its policy/budget decisions. 

So, what is the fear? I understand that we must be respectful of our employers and the code of ethics that we agree to when we accept our positions. 

But, we are citizens first, before employees of whatever organization we choose to work in. We MUST be able to speak out against issues that we feel are hurting our democracy, our future, our planet and (near and dear to my heart), our children's education; without fear of retribution. 

No one I know wears only one hat or identifies themselves as only an employee or parent or volunteer. We are all made up of many parts and must be able to be involved with the groups and issues that inspire us and to then advocate for them. This is what contributes to strong citizen engagement and the kind of civil society we want to live in. What we want is a society that is fueled by educated, imaginative, creative, passionate and engaged people. Right?

 We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.  ~Edward R. Murrow

By: Eryn Kelly