JCT: I got an email from Tim Philp informing the candidates
in the Brant provincial election of the rules we will have
to obey during the debate televised by Rogers cable TV.

>From: "Tim Philp" <tphilp@...>
>To: <johnturmel@...>, <ted@...>,
><rfergusonca2@...>, <brian@...>,
><DMcCreary@...>, <dlevac.mpp.co@...>
>Subject: Rogers Television Debate URGENT
>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:50:02 -0400
>Rogers Television Provincial Election 2006

TP: My name is Tim Philp and I am the Community Producer for
Rogers Television coverage of the live television debate for
the provincial race in the riding of Brant.
As you are a registered candidate, I am inviting you to
participate in this debate. The debate will be from 7:00 PM
to 9:00 PM at Brantford City Hall Council Chambers on
Tuesday September 18th. I would ask that you confirm your
attendance at the debate with me. If you cannot attend the
debate, there will be no further opportunity provided by
Rogers Television to participate in a debate. You can reach
me at 758-1260 (H) or e-mail me at: tphilp@...

Rules:
In order to be fair to all candidates, we ask that everyone
agree to abide by the rules for the debate as set out below.
Our objective is to provide you with a forum to speak
directly to the public without interference.

JCT: Without interference from anyone but Fuhrer Philp?

TP: To accomplish this we have designed the following rules

JCT: Rules designed by Big Brother Philp with no input from
the real candidates. These are rules that Fuhrer Philp
wanted, not rules that the candidates wanted.

TP: and we will be strictly enforcing them throughout the
debate.

TP: And Big Brother had the cops ready at the door for any
candidates who dared disobey Big Brother's rules.

TP: Any failure to follow the rules will result in your not
being allowed to attend the debate or in your removal from
the debate.

JCT: This is Big Brother talking, just like in 1984, with
Big Brother's cops ready to remove anyone who disobeys Big
Brother's Rules.

TP: As well, we will be requiring you to sign the Rogers
Television Standard Release form prior to going on the air.

JCT: This gives them the right to delete us from the the
show and gives up our right to sue for any reason or we
don't get our equitable share of free-time partisan
political broadcast.

TP: 1) One minute opening Statement
JCT: Our first minute where we get to speak about what we
want to speak about, not what Philp has scripted for us.

TP: 2) One minute closing statement (if time permits)

JCT: Our second minute to speak about what we want to speak
about unless Fuhrer Philp decides to skip it by spending
more time on extra questions.

TP: 3) One minute to answer each question
4) All time limits STRICTLY enforced
5) A bell will sound when 10 seconds are remaining of
candidate's time.
6) At end of candidate's time, the microphone will be turned
off.
7) All candidates may answer/comment on each question
8) Questions to come from media panel and pre-screened
audience questions which will be read by the moderator.

JCT: Like I said, Fuhrer Philp gets to pre-screen the
questions that will end up in Big Brother's script.

TP: As well, the moderator may ask questions of
clarification from specific candidates

JCT: We can't ask question of each other but Philp can? He
gets to spend time seek answers he didn't get the first time
around? The meeting should not be slowed down to his speed.

TP: 9) At the moderator's discretion, time limits may be
extended to deal with topics of importance in the city or
the province.

JCT: Fuhrer Philp gets to divert more time to issues of
interest to Fuhrer Philp. He not only wants to focus on
topics of his choosing but to also allocate more time.

TP: 10) If, in the moderator's judgment, a question has not
received a full discussion, the moderator may ask a follow-
up question to the panel.

JCT: The all-powerful Fuhrer of the debate gets to pose his
own questions too.

TP: 11) Candidates seated in alphabetical order

JCT: Seating should have been drawn by lot. No one should be
forced to sit beside me at every meeting. But why leave it
to chance when control-freak Philp can make us to sit where
he wants us to sit.

TP: 12) Speaking order determined by lottery before
broadcast

JCT: He blew that. The speaking order was in alphabetical
order. I guess that with all the arbitrary decisions he had
to make despite our criticisms, what's just one more?

TP: 13) No signs, or banners permitted in audience

JCT: Just keeping it as drab and colorless as Tim Philp is.
Gone are the days of noisy, raucous, audience feedback.

TP: 14) No buttons, badges, or props will be permitted for
use by the candidates

JCT: Of course, my presentations are based on many props
such as books,newspaper headlines, different community
currencies, poker chips, LETS diskette, etc. So he's
telling me I can't present my message in the way I present
it to every other meeting I attend. This is more than just
being as boring and grey as Tim Philp, this is Big Brother's
interference in how a candidate presents his message which
cannot be as persuasive without the visual aids for a video
audience that would be useless for an radio audience but
that Philp calls props.

TP: 15) Candidate's name will be inserted on-screen
electronically while the candidate is speaking during the
broadcast.
16) No demonstrations from the audience will be permitted.
Please be at City Hall no later than 6:30 PM so we can go
over some of the technical details and choose speaking
order. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact
me at the above telephone numbers or by e-mail. Regards,
Tim Philp

JCT: I got there in plenty of time so I could object to the
Big Brother debate rules. While we were all seated in the
Brantford Council Chamber, I protested out loud the rules
which let the moderator steer discussion. I said loudly that
we didn't need the moderator's opinion, this was the
candidate's debate. He insisted on taking it into the back
room. Sure, the other candidates are witnesses too.

In the hallway, he laid down the rules. I repeated I didn't
want his opinion on what issues needed more time. Tory Dan
McCreary asked: "who decides which issues need more time?" I
pointed and said: "Philp does." Green Ted Shelegy asked how
much more time would be devoted to an issue. I pointed and
said: "Philp decides." Philp tried to explain that there had
been complaints that some important issues were not getting
enough coverage in a 1-minute answer. "So Philp gets to
decide," I quipped again. I asked "Why not just let us have
up 2 minutes instead of up to 1?" At this point he snapped
and screamed "Shut up John." I repeated it anyway: "Giving
us all 2 minutes solves your problem without you deciding."
He just said no, that won't happen. I guess it would only
happen if we let Fuhrer Philp decide which issues to stress.

NDP candidate Brian Van Tilborg said he wasn't prepared for
more than 1-minute pieces. Everyone agreed we'd rather stay
with the 1-minute format and I made sure to rub it in that
he should keep his nose out of our debate, that we weren't
interested in his opinions. He just said the rules let him
participate and I warned him none of us wanted him to.

So then I decided to raised Rule Number 14, no identifying
party buttons. I asked: "What gives you the right to say we
can't wear our political affiliation buttons? He said: you
were told years ago." Actually, I wasn't. Sure I've known
that Fuhrer Philp did ban party paraphenalia for years but I
never actually found out why. I complained to the CRTC
(Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission) about Rogers exerting undue control over our
political presentations but it did not respond and I
couldn't spare the time to appeal to a Federal Court Judge
under Section 28 to find out it Philp had the right to
interfere with a political presentation I can make in any
way I choose at all other meetings but the Rogers debate.

I told him: "Who do you think you are to ban our party
buttons? Even if you once told me why, go ahead and tell
these five gentlemen why you won't let them wear their party
ID buttons tonight? Of course, he thinks my complaint was
resolved because the CRTC didn't force him to answer. But
now the other five candidates were there waiting for the
answer Philp says I was given years ago and he had to come
with something. So he said since they were putting our name
and party under our picture, it would be unfair to have
party buttons too. Har har har har. Really.

What a crock. Har har har. I asked the others: "Does any one
of you think it would be somehow unfair to someone for us to
wear our party buttons? Of course, no one agreed with Philp.
So he just said that they were the rules we had to obey if
we wanted to get our free-time. I think the other candidates
who a real whiff of the stink of Big Brother's interference
in our debate.

He then asked us if we'd object if, on some issues, he
opened the floor up to a discussion between all the
candidates rather than the usual Questions and Answers.
Someone asked "Who decides which become discussion?" I
answered: "Philp does, of course. No one wanted him opening
it up at his discretion. I quipped: "Imagine, suggested
format changes from him may be considered but not from us."
He said that those were the rules, period. I said: That's
why we've got to get a new moderator by the next time." He
didn't expect that.

As we were leaving the back room, I said to Dave Levac: It's
my only chance to punish him once every few years.

At the opening of the show, Fuhrer Philp said: "these are
the rules that have been agreed to by the candidates," and
explained how the moderator could do extend time, the
moderator ask questions to specific candidates, the
moderator can delve deeper in issues of interest to the
moderator... How candidates can't do this, candidates can't
do that... How the speaking order was going to be in
alphabetical order rather than drawn by chance.

So in my opening minute statement,
"Well, the moderator said that the rules have been agreed to
where he gets to comment and interject and add time for the
questions and frankly, I'm not interested in the moderator's
opinions, this is our show.
Number two, the moderator said we can't wear badges, buttons
identifying ourselves, can't use props, so I can't use a
computer diskette to tell you I'm in favor of using...

JCT: At this point, I pulled out a 1.5x1.5 inch decal of a
computer diskette with LET$ on it, a prop.

Philp: Mr. Turmel, I've cut your mike off. If you want to
follow the rules of the debate, I'd be prepared to have you
continue. If you don't want to follow the rules of the
debate, we'll have you removed. It's your choice sir."

JCT: I put the decal on my lapel. Philp then called on the
next candidate to speak. Fuhrer Philp was going to go on and
exclude me from the rest of the show. I hit my mike button
saying "excuse me," before he cut it off again.

Philp: John, one more interruption and I'm going to have the
police remove you.
Turmel: For what? For my button? For my badge? All right.
I'll take my button off. There, my button is off. Now..
Philp cut me off and after a few seconds, told them to eject
me anyway:
Philp: "Officers, will you please remove this man."

The officers approached, I started packing up
Philp: I'm going to allow this debate to continue once Mr.
Turmel has been removed from the room."

As I left, I shouted "You run a boring show, Philp, Fuhrer
Philp with his lousy rules. Get a job."

Philp: Let's go back to the debate, I apologize for the
interruption.

JCT: Sure he should apologize for rules that are arbitrary
and stupid but he doesn't really mean it.

Philp: The rules were explained to Mr. Turmel,

JCT: Big Brother laid down the law.

Philp: Mr. Turmel was also informed of the consequences of
not following the rules

JCT: of Fuhrer Philp.

Philp: He is aware of that now, let's continue.

JCT: Considering how much people don't know about the
background, you have to admit that Philp made himself look
pretty good. Turmel was warned about the rules, Turmel was
warned about breaking the rules. Turmel broke the rules.
What rule did he break. Turmel held up decal during a
political campaign, the same decal Turmel wear's on the
lapel at every other meeting except the Rogers scripted
show.

Unfortunately, the reporter covering it was Michael-Allan
Marion, the guy who can't seem to get to meetings on time
and then and makes stuff up. So here's his report from the

>Brantford Expositor, page A3
>Date: Sep 19 2007
>Candidates clash at debate
>Michael-Allan Marion

JCT: I guess Marion missed the fact that the big clash of
the evening wasn't between candidate-candidate but between
moderator and candidate. You'd have thought the 9x6 inch
picture they used of me holding up my against-the-rules LET$
decal should have given him a clue.
Caption: Green Party candidate Ted Shelegy (left), and NDP
contender Brian Van Tilborg (right) listen as Independent
candidate John Turmel protests the rules at an all-
candidates debate held in city council chambers on Tuesday
night. Turmel was removed by police when he would not comply
with the rules.

JCT: Couldn't mention what rule. Just "against the rules."

MAM: It seemed all the major local and provincial issues in
Brant riding in the Oct 10 Ontario election were grist for
the mill Tuesday as contenders for five parties vied for
position in a Rogers Television all-candidates debate.
Liberal incumbent Dave Levac maintained a steady, low-key
defence of the Dalton McGuinty government's record against
attacks from New Democrat Brian Van Tilborg, Green Party
candidate Ted Shelegy, Progressive Conservative Dan McCready
and Rob Ferguson of the Family Coalition Party over plant
closures and job losses, the future of Brantford Collegiate
Institute, provincial agriculture policy and buying out
tobacco growers desperate to leave their dying crop sector.
But the event began with a little drama supplied by a sixth
candidate

JCT: Big Brother's undue interference hampering a political
presentation is just a "little drama." What can be less
important than a question of democracy?

MAM: independent John Turmel, who was bounced from the room
by two city police officers at moderator Tim Philp's
request.

JCT: Bounced, as in illegitimate intruder, just adding a
little bias to the charge that hasn't been specified.

MAM: During the candidate opening remarks, Turmel voiced his
displeasure over Philp's ruling that candidates weren't
allowed to sport campaign buttons or other paraphenalia,
including some computer equipment the candidate wanted to
use.

JCT: Gee, wasn't he there to see that it wasn't a real 4x4
inch diskette but a mere 2x2 decal of a diskette?

MAM: Turmel said he would reluctantly remove a button from
his jacket but after he made a caustic remark, Philp warned
him he could be removed. After another remark, Philp
summoned two constables. "Fuhrer Philp!" Turmel shouted as
the officers escorted him out.

JCT: Notice he didn't quote the offending caustic remarks!
It would be pretty bad for a moderator to deny a candidate
an equitable share of the free-time political broadcast
because of caustic remarks, especially when the offending
remarks aren't even quoted? Luckily, that's not what Fuhrer
Philp did wrong. The caustic remarks story was a complete
fabrication.

And Marion sounds like he accepts that caustic remarks are a
good reason for banning a political candidate from
participating in the free-time partisan political broadcast.
Anyway, the last time I complained about the Expositor's
pack of lies about me, the Ontario Press Council refused to
adjudicate my complaint when you offered no defence to my
tape of the event, but I'll still complain and put them on
the spot if you don't print the truth now. And it always
stats with a letter demanding the lie be corrected:

> Letter to the Brantford Expositor
> opinion@...
> Sep 20 2007

Dear Sir:

In his Sep 19 2007 article titled "candidates clash at
debate," which picture and described the "moderator-
candidate clash," Michael-Allan Marion says that moderator
Tim Philp had city police eject John Turmel for "two caustic
remarks" I am said to have made.

Rogers will repeat the debate on 8pm on Sep 29, Oct 6 or Oct
8 and you only need catch the first 8 minutes to verify that
this story of "caustic remarks" is a complete fabrication.
He probably wasn't even there yet, the second indication
being that he thought the 2x2 inch sticker of a diskette
with the word LET$ was not a piece of computer equipment.

John C. Turmel
8-37 Colborne St. E.
Brantford, N3T 2G3,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645
Email: turmel@...


--
Abolitionist Debt Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer"
Turmel for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution
C6 to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel USENET blog: alt.fan.john-turmel