119. (1) Every one who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly
(i) accepts or obtains,
(ii) agrees to accept, or
(iii) attempts to obtain,
any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity, or
(b) gives or offers, corruptly, to a person mentioned in paragraph (a) any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person ...
| ....is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. |
this is unreal . . . more and more like some banana republic every day.
The stench is almost overwhelming . . .
Ive been reading that money launders prefer canada as its seldom anyone ever does any time.Canada is soft on white caller crime they say.Ours is their country of choice.
This really isn't that suprising. Bribery of public figures is a commonly accepted practice amongst mobsters of all ilks.
Quick survey amongst fellow readers. Which strikes you as the most revolting display of hypocrisy over the last year?
a) Liberals claiming "moral authority" to govern despite significant ties to $100 million kickback scheme.
b) Michael Jackson opening the Neverland Ranch Daycare centre while on trial for child molestation charges.
c) Kofi Annan criticizing US foreign policy while being the de facto head of peacekeepers whose conduct can all too often be described as Gacy-esque.
PS b) is fictious. But it seemed to fit in nicely. :-)
The Liberal mantra ... but only if we get caught!
Well of course Kate you realize the key word is "corruptly". As any CBC or Globe&Mail staffer could tell you, saving the country from being taken over by Stephen Harper and those extremist, wicked, mean spirited and nasty neo-cons- and their hidden agenda- is the antithesis of corruption. Indeed it is the work of angels. No (Liberal appointed) Judge would ever convict any member of the NGP of such a baseless charge. It would indeed be a travesty if any nation-saving patriot were to....
Does any of that 119 thing really make any difference tho? With that handy dandy 18 month statute of limitations, all a politician has to do is count back 18 months from his end-of-term date and make sure he doesn't steal so much so blatently as to get himself lynched in the meantime.
The way the statute *should* work for politicians is like in the US military - the clock starts the day you're discharged. If the statute is three years for a theft you committed on your first day in uniform, even if you stay in for 20 years they can still charge you for that theft up to three years after you retire.
No, that wouldn't likely happen but the mechanism I think is a lot more appropriate.
Inky Mark and the offer of a plum appointment was a nice "moral authority" Liberal touch to stay in power. A Conservative-Liberal budget forged for Liberal gain, then for greater Liberal gain abandoned and replaced with an NDP-Liberal budget, were also great "moral authority" Liberal touches to stay in power. However in the Liberal effort to stay in power, my money for the winning moves is on the "moral authority" moves of:
(1) Abandoning the NDP-Liberal budget
(2) Replacing that budget with the new Bloc-Liberal budget
(3) Appointing Gilles Doucette as the new "moral authority" Ambassador to France.
Appointing Gilles Doucette as the new "moral authority" Ambassador to France. Mentally Challenged
This may not be enough. How about King of France?
I'm thankful that this exact point which I posted at CQ about 2 weeks ago is getting the attention it deserves. A second point that I mentioned at that time - as a hypothesis for the singing canary syndrome at the Gomery inquiry - is Article 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Mr. Trudeau's legacy?) which states: "A witness who testifies in ANY proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence."
What a coincidence that Gomery is not apparently allowed to assign criminal or civil responsibility, which means any charges would have to be brought at a subsequent trial, where - according to the way I read Article 13 - allowing any of the self-incriminating testimony given at the Gomery inquiry would be a violation of the victim's charter right.