Joel at Proud To Be Canadian has dug up a lot of information on Jeff Monaghan, the self-styled "anarchist" (I'll put it in quotes, as he denied the description tonight on the CBC) and Environment Canada flunky who is under investigation by the RCMP on the leaking of the government's "Green Plan."
Go here to see what he found. I'll content myself with scalping the link to Monaghan's lame-o punk band. Warning: Embedded music. And it ain't exactly The Clash.
The Mounties' preliminary interest seems to be concerning "Breach of Trust," the description of which and penalties for are specified in the Criminal Code as:
PART IV: OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW AND JUSTICE Corruption and DisobedienceBreach of trust by public officer
122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.
So it's a pretty serious charge he's potentially facing. I found some additional commentary on it here:
Of all the sections addressing frauds on the government, perhaps the most general is the one aimed at preventing breaches of trust by public officers. Section 122 of the Criminal Code targets every official who, in connection with the duties of his or her office, commits fraud or a breach of trust. Section 122 does not require intent to commit fraud or a breach of trust. As a result, public officials have broader liability than private citizens who are charged under the general fraud provision, section 336 of the Criminal Code, which requires a specific intent to defraud[69]. Correspondingly, public office holders can be sentenced only to a maximum of five years in prison, whereas private citizens who engage in similar activities can face up to 14 years in jail[70].For a public office holder to be convicted of breach of trust, it is sufficient that the accused be an official, that the act in question was committed in the general context of the execution of his or her duties, and that the act constitute fraud or breach of trust[71]. For a breach of trust to have occurred, the public official must have committed the act contrary to a duty imposed on him or her by law, and the act must have produced a personal benefit[72]. It is not necessary that the public official have dishonest or corrupt intentions.
Did the act produce a "personal benefit"? I don't know. Presumably he had in mind scoring with anarchist chicks. Not much of a prize, if you ask me, but to each his own. Certainly being in the band wasn't going to do it.
Unless it means going to jail. In which case he will be the one auditioning for the role of "anarchist chick."
Comments (4)
And he will be running for the NDP in the Toronto riding of..........
Posted by rations | May 11, 2007 4:39 AM
Posted on May 11, 2007 04:39
Anarchist chicks? The mental picture is unbearable.
Posted by ptg | May 11, 2007 10:06 AM
Posted on May 11, 2007 10:06
the fact that you find prison rape an acceptable allusion for random insults betrays your inhumanity.
in addition, personality-motivation speculations based on web-searches are inevitably indulgent and innacurate, don't you think?
Posted by Anonymous | May 12, 2007 10:20 PM
Posted on May 12, 2007 22:20
"ain't exactly the Clash." Well, no. Actually I find the lead singer sounds a bit more like Jello Biafra from the Dead Kennedys. Whether the band is "lame-o" is a matter of taste, but comparing them to the Beatles of the punk rock world based on a single sound clip doesn't seem... "proportional" to me. Do you see what I'm saying? (let me guess, the Clash are the only punk rock band you know anything about).
But seriously, excellent effort to dig up "dirt" on Monaghan (actually about 90% of it appeared in newspapers a day after the press conference, but anyway...). I did like your inclusion of the relevant section of the criminal code. Particularly the part about "personal benefit." Because, you see, Monaghan did not gain from this situation as he didn't sell his story (the love of "anarchist chicks" MIGHT have been a deciding factor, but I daresay that would not stand up in court. Maybe at an anarchist bookfair afterparty, but not in court!). Not only that, he has undoubtedly lost his job. Which is why he won't see the inside of a jail cell. I know this might seem hard for you to understand, but could it be (COULD it be?) Monaghan did it because he thought (however erroneously) that it was the right thing to do. Because he was fed up with government (be it Tory or Grit) half measures and sidestepping on dealing with global warming.
In this "green" document the Tories reneg on Kyoto, a treaty that many other countries on this planet are working towards. Since you are clearly a blogger of the "right wing" persuasion, I anticipate that your response to this fact will be identical to the usual pap that flows out of the National Post, Sun Media and other CanWest news sources (so where was that pesky "liberal" bias in the media again?): 'climate change isn't happening, and if it is it is not our fault. Periods of rapid cooling and warming are common in the life of this planet, and we are not going to pay attention to the fact that this is happening exponentially faster than any period of warming discernible by science. And even if it is our fault we certainly couldn't be asked to do anything about it that would require any sacrifice or effort on our part. China and India are bigger polluters, so our efforts will just be a drop in the bucket. So why bother? People who criticize my position do so for partisan gain. They have a vested interest in seeing Canada fall behind economically or something, plus they hate my freedom of speech. One of the great things about this country is I can say whatever I want, no matter how misinformed I am on the subject. Basically, at the end of the day, it is about keeping the economy and my lifestyle intact at all costs. Global warming can be a problem for my children or grandchildren. Let them deal with it.'
Sound familiar? well, I don't know for sure what your argument would be, but those comments, explicitly or implicitly, sum up any "argument" I have ever heard for taking Canada out of Kyoto. I wait with bated breath for your stunning rebuttal, showing how this just ain't so. I'm sure you have lots of really important things to say. Go nuts.
Posted by Ethel | May 13, 2007 7:17 AM
Posted on May 13, 2007 07:17