Something very unusual happened in Canada the other day. A federal government bureaucrat actually resigned his (lucrative paying) job on principle. Canadian federal bureaucrat, statistician Wayne Smith, resigned from his position in Statistics Canada over coming technological changes to the department:
High-ranking federal bureaucrats don't tend to resign publicly, or on principle. Yet that's just what Wayne Smith did on Friday in a move he described as desperate, and one that's made him, in his words, a black sheep among his peers.
In an interview with CBC News, Canada's former chief statistician says he's at peace with his decision to quit over the federal government's troubled tech support agency, Shared Services Canada, which he says has compromised Statistics Canada's independence.
Smith submitted his letter of resignation to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Aug. 3. In it, he thanked Trudeau for giving him the opportunity to reinstate the long-form census, and then he outlined his reasons for leaving.
"I made clear that if I did resign it would be with the intention of making public my concerns. So that was my last desperate bid, I guess, to persuade the government to sit down and talk about this. Didn't work," Smith said with a smile.
Chief statistician resigns over government's failure to 'protect the independence' of StatsCan
5 years on, still not clear when Shared Services Canada will save Ottawa money
On Sept. 15, Smith received two letters. The first was from Trudeau, who Smith said acknowledged receipt of his correspondence and restated his commitment to the independence of Statistics Canada. The second was from Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick, who accepted his resignation.
"Well, it told me quite clearly that the government has no intention of changing course," said Smith.
In the olden days...actually, I can remember back a few decades in Canada when, if a leader or a politician failed in a major commitment to the electorate, s/he would "fall on their sword", i.e., resign from their position. If they lost a major vote in Parliament or were beset by personal or political scandal...they would immediately do the honourable thing and resign. This would allow the democracy to move on...and the business of government not to be dragged down by scandal or legal entanglements.
That almost never happens today. Today, no matter how dire the personal scandal, corruption allegations or, as we've seen recently in the Hillary Clinton health controversy...the individual could literally pass out on the pavement during an election campaign....still insist they're in excellent health...then clam up and demand that the electorate "forgid aboud it!" Hillary's legal issues (e-mail scandal) were serious enough for the head of the federal law enforcement agency...FBI's James Comey...to give a press conference where he listed her untruths, but then decided...because she didn't "intend" to prevaricate or subvert standard rules of government confidentiality...he was not going to charge her. Now, we find out (due to even more e-mail revelations) that he has personal connections to the Clinton Foundation and that his brother...does Hillary's tax returns! And this is not a conflict of interest?! Never mind...neither of them resigned and don't intend to.
Why Not? The reason is that, in former times, politicians and bureaucrats resigned because in a democracy...they were considered to be working for the people and if they let the people down they had to resign. Today, there's no democracy. Western states are run by an international Deep State government controlled by the international Rothchild banksters and the MIC (military/industrial complex). Hillary, Comey, et al. don't owe their jobs to the people anymore. They are factotums of the Deep State. All the elections in the West over past few decades have been subverted. True democratic candidates are rarely allowed to gain office. Remember the shock in Minnesota when Jessie Ventura won the governorship? That was probably the last time that happened in the US.
The only reason politicians and bureaucrats have to resign today is if they embarrass the Deep State...or somehow delay or thwart its goals. Then, and only then, the bought and paid for, criminally culpable main$ream media will rise up as one.... like a monster from the "Deep" State and drive them from office.
The same rules apply in international relations. Witness the lack of fall out from the "mistake" the US military made in attacking the Syrian army last weekend, causing mass casualties. Did anyone from the US State Department or Department of Defense/Pentagon resign? Naw....it was bidness as usual. Nobody has ever resigned over the scores of similar "mistaken" airstrikes....from the time the US air force attacked the Canadian armed forces in Kandahar Afghanistan in 2002, through all the friendly fire and fragging incidents of dissidents/whistleblowers, like that famous young football player who was killed in Afghanistan under highly suspicious circumstances...through all the bombings and attacks on civilians in Iraq...through the several air bombings of "Doctors Without Borders" hospitals in Afghanistan and Syria last year...right up to this latest atrocity. How many times have the "gang that can't shoot straight" killed their enemies, called it a "mistake" and quickly moved on? If anyone other than a low ranking patsy/pilot/soldier has ever resigned, it would be an utter shock. Now, they even have vassal states like Australia, Denmark and the UK stepping up and, in a quintessential political "humiliating test of loyalty" offering to share the blame for the latest "mistake". I guess, after the Tarnak Farm Incident, even the US did not have the gall to demand that Canada also make the false confession.
If it were really a "mistake", IMO, Kerry should resign, along with Ashton Carter and Samantha Power...just for a start. In the days of democracy...if it had really been a "mistake" they would all be long gone. IMO, even Russia's Lavrov should consider resigning...due to his perpetual ineptitude in trusting the rogue deep state that is occupying the corridors of power in Washington. He complains about the United States being unable to separate the jihadist terrorists from the "moderate" rebels. Well, Lavrov is just as guilty of not being able to separate the two factions in Washington who are duking it out in a highly dangerous undeclared civil war.
Before any more "peace agreements" are signed between Russia and the US...Putin/Lavrov need to first define and separate the few vestiges of the former democratic Republic of the United States of America--from the current representatives of the dominant neocon, globalist, warmongering MIC/international Rothchild Banksters. Russia should only negotiate with the vestiges of democracy in the US...as rare as these are.
Or, if they fail again, they should seriously consider falling on their swords.