Everyone knows the details already, but the basic facts are essential here: former MP Rahim Jaffer was charged last year with drunk driving and drug possession. Several days ago, under an agreement reached between his lawyer and an Ontario provincial Crown prosecutor, Jaffer pleaded guilty to lesser charges. The provincial prosecutor said there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction on the more serious charges; according to this report, police sources said that “a rookie OPP officer failed to follow proper procedures during a strip search of Jaffer.”
Now, keeping in mind that at the time he was charged Jaffer was neither a Conservative MP nor working for the Conservatives in any capacity whatsoever (they had long since elbowed him out of the nomination race in his riding), and that his plea deal was reached with the Crown prosecutor, not the judge, in a provincial jurisdiction that the federal government absolutely has no say in, take a look at a sampling of what various media and opposition members had to say:
David Akin: “Turns out the judge in the case, Doug Maund, is a long-time Tory.” Jane Taber: “Stephen Harper’s tough-on-crime Conservatives were accused of being not-so-tough when it comes to one of their own…” Akin, again: “Jaffer’s former caucus colleagues immediately tried to distance themselves from the (Crown prosecutor’s) decision.” Peter Mansbridge, introducing the top story on The National: “As a Conservative Member of Parliament Rahim Jaffer was known for his tough stand on crime. Now, the opposition says he’s a Tory example of another kind: hypocrisy!” Liberal MP Anita Neville, seen bellowing in the HOC on The National: “The Conservatives are conspicuously silent…when the law is being flouted by one of their own.” Toronto Lawyer Russell Silverstein, on The National: “You know, when the public sees somebody charged with drunk driving and possession of cocaine who’s politically connected…” Unidentified man-on-the-street, on The National: “Ex-Conservative MP, married to the Minister of State for Women’s Affairs – I mean obviously they’re going to drop the charges, they had no choice.” (all emph. mine)
The attempts to attach Jaffer’s actions to the Conservative government (“one of their own“) were pure partisan ridiculousness, and almost laughable; what was not even slightly laughable, in those several days of coverage, were the efforts of various media and opposition members to raise, in a sideways fashion – i.e., without being accountable for it – a constant insinuation that the Conservative government interfered behind the scenes in a decision made by a provincial crown prosecutor. For two days and nights, a serious allegation which there was no evidence for became unmistakably threaded into the subtext of the coverage of what was, unaccountably, the biggest news story in the country.
While various other media members also joined in, it was once again the CBC who led the charge, displaying a perfected reversal of the sort of coverage they gave the Liberals. When in 1996 Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien was ordered by a judge to answer a charge of assault, and Quebec’s Justice Minister announced a few hours later that he would not allow the case to proceed, there were no insinuations that there had been any political interference. When Jean Chretien’s son Michel was charged in 2002 with sexual assault, illegal confinement, and sodomy, the mother of the victim stated that she had been pressured by a sitting Liberal MP to not press criminal charges. She said the MP told her –
“…(Chretien) is the Prime Minister, he has all the power and he will fight this case for Michel. Then she told me that ‘a lot of dirty things are going to come up about your past and the media will be there’…I almost changed my mind (about pressing charges) because of that.”
Remember the CBC’s top-of-the-hour news story on that? Well, me neither, because there wasn’t one. And yet somehow, in the last two days, a provincial crown prosecutor’s decision, in a case involving a former MP, now a private citizen, somehow managed to become attached, with great deal of hyperventilating outrage, to the Conservatives. How does that happen, exactly? Only Mansbridge’s hairdresser knows for sure, but consider, in isolation, the CBC’s decision to nationally broadcast, in their top-of-the-hour story, the following statement:
“Ex-Conservative MP, married to the Minister of State for Women’s affairs, I mean, obviously they’re going to drop the charges, they had no choice.”
Interesting. Suppose some non-taxpayer-funded news network – let’s call it Fox News Canada – aired an unidentified man-in-the-street’s assertion that Michael Ignatieff beats his wife if she leaves dirty dishes in the sink. The network, and the reporter, would surely be required to provide some evidence to back up the statement or else face very serious consequences. It wouldn’t t even begin to suffice, as either a legal or moral defense, one wouldn’t think, for the network – or the reporter or the producer – to say “hey, we didn’t say that at all, it was some guy in the street.” To the contrary, the only justification for airing such a statement would be if it was made by a known public figure, at which point there might be some justification for covering it, albeit without repeating the allegation, and only in the context of a story noting that politician X made a serious allegation about Ignatieff without any proof to back it up; there could certainly be no journalistic justification whatsoever for airing such a statement from some unidentified man in the street, and any broadcaster who aired such a serious accusation without proof would be liable for it, and held to account.
Someone at the CBC made a decision to broadcast, coast-to-coast, an unidentified individual’s statement that a particular provincial Crown prosecutor – someone who has a name, a professional reputation, and a family – rendered a decision based not on the law he’s been sworn to uphold but on political interference from someone outside his jurisdiction, and that our sitting government illegally interfered in a court case in a provincial jurisdiction – and all without one single shred of evidence.
Was it urgent, serious, and of public importance for the CBC to nationally broadcast a categorical, unproven allegation of serious wrongdoing made by an unidentified member of the public? Was the unidentified individual’s honest statement of opinion in any way based on fact? Has the CBC – would the CBC – ever broadcast an allegation of serious wrongdoing by a Liberal government that had absolutely no basis in fact?
No, no, and no.
Vile, unethical, unprofessional journalism – and it only costs us a billion dollars a year.
You know, there oughta be a law…
http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspapers/2002-07/jul26_02pmo.html
Mother of Chretien’s victim claims she was pressured by MP Ethel Blondin-Andrew. It was Chretien’s third charge of sexual assault, one for which he was convicted and sentenced to nine months was against a six year old boy.
The CBC will do whatever it takes to slam the Conservatives,including risking the lives of their employees. Back in July 2009,a young girl was killed by a ricocheting bullet fired by one of our troops. The CBC sent a news crew down fourty miles of the deadliest roads in the world to interview the girl’s family,who were extremely upset,what a surprise. This was spun into condemnation of Harper et al,and our role in Afghanistan. I’ve always wondered how they made this journey unscathed. Were they extremely lucky? Did they have an escort from our troops? Or,did they strike a deal with the enemy to ensure safe passage? I doubt very much that any NATO commander would risk their people to protect a CBC news team under these circumstances. That leaves foolish luck or collusion with the Taliban.Take your pick…Also,worth noting,during the ‘wafergate scandal’ CBC somehow or other neglected to pick up a phone and talk directly to the reporters covering the original story,likely because of the danger of using New Brunswick phone lines.— CBC News tracked down the girl’s family as they gathered for her funeral in a small village in the volatile Panjwaii district of Kandahar province.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/24/afghan-shooting-family072409.html#socialcomments#ixzz0i5Heyk6m
You hit another one out of the ballpark EBD. I remember Michael, Crets son, and the information about his charges being in the bottom right hand corner of about the 5th page in the Calgary Herald.
I don’t think the former PMJC son’s case ever crossed the news(read propaganda) desk of the CBC, if it did (which I am certain it did)it was dumped in the ‘do not mention’ safe.
I also remember the scandalous behavior of PET’s former wife, Margaret, with the Rolling Stones. Were drugs involved? With the Rolling Stones?? Rhetorical question.
CBC does a dis service to truth, it should be refunded at once – and the citizens of Canada should sue the National Broadcaster and the Climategate liars at the same time. All assets of the private individuals involved in scandals and the consequences of those lies should be seized and sold; the money should be given to Canadian taxpayers in a lump sum. Redemption.
Not one comment mentions that he is married to a sitting Conservative MP? EBD, did it never occur to your pointy little head that that’s what they mean when they say he’s part of the “Conservative family”?
I think this smells to high heaven, just as it did when Maggie Trudeau-Kemper-Whatever got off. I had a friend who went to a football game around the same time, had a bit to drink, was driven home by the DD, got up the next morning, drove to work, and was stopped and arrested for being over the limit. Did he get a $500 fine? No way. $10,000 in various fines and expenses, a 3-year suspension, and a criminal record that hangs around his neck. But then, he wasn’t connected to anyone.
This stinks of two-tier justice in both cases.
And the usual suspects howling for Guergis’s head will then turn on the PM for dissing women if she’s asked to resign from cabinet. Sometimes you just can’t win.
Perhaps she was stressed out from hubby’s upcoming trial, but throwing tantrums is beneath the dignity of a cabinet minister, or anyone over two years old, for that matter. If she had a good spinmaster, she could have turned her bad behaviour into sympathy for the poor widdle wifey. Poor Helena, she was just so worried about Rahim, she was trying to get home to be by his side as a loyal wife and she completely forgot herself.
It’s amusing and/or disgusting that the same people hyperventilating over Helena’s behavior in the airport have no issue with giving a free pass to — and even venerating — the equally insolent and immature conduct of a certain Liberal prime minister famous for giving the finger to his constituents and his, erm, “decorum” in the House of Commons.
KevinB
I have a question regarding your friend who got a “$10,000 in various fines and expenses, a 3-year suspension, and a criminal record” for impaired driving. And that is: Did he have any previous impaired/criminal convictions? For someone to get a driving suspension of three years (plus $10,000 fine)would indicate that your friend may have had more than one conviction.
CBC needs to lose it’s operating license, it’s no longer a professional venue but a Liberal smear machine.
Great work EBD… the media in this country are a disgrace. the media CBC, CTV, Global, etc. who are nothing more than shills and stooges for the Lib/Sep/NDP alliance once again colluding with the Lib/Sep/NDP alliance in this latest smear (Raittgate,Boobgate,what did the PM do with that wafergate etc. etc.) This co-ordinating of fear@smear between the Lib/Sep/NDP alliance and the media is a bloody joke and down right nauseating. “Jaffergate” is the latest co-ordinated effort in the ongoing and perpetual fear@smear campaign between the LIb/Sep’s and the MSM. Sickening! Just as a side note, I noticed yesterday that Trudeau bum licker and Liberal party toadie Craig Oliver was openly musing about why the Libtards are continuing to pursue the detaniee “scandal” issue now that the obvious has been revealed, and that is that the Liberals knew all about abuse of terrorist combatants under the Liberal policy agreement and didn’t care, and thus did nothing to stop said abuse. In Craigs demented mind, and the MSM in geaneral its only a scandal up to and until the point the Liberals are implicated in said “scandal”, then it’s not a “scandal” anymore, it’s just the kind of thing that happens during a time of war. Pathetic. Thanks EBD.
“Not one comment mentions that he is married to a sitting Conservative MP” – KevinB
Yes, Kevin, in the comments under a post on the subject of the CBC airing a serious allegation of wrongdoing on the part of a provincial Crown prosecutor, no commenter mentioned the name of the wife of a former MP.
“EBD, did it never occur to your pointy little head that that’s what they mean when they say he’s part of the ‘Conservative family?” – KevinB
Why, it never even occurred to me at all – I mean, apart from the fact that the centerpiece of the post, and my argument, is the prominently block-quoted statement –
“Ex-Conservative MP, Married to the Minister of State for Women’s affairs…” etc.
I prominently block-quoted it to point out that the CBC used the fact that his spouse in an MP to air an accusation, without any evidence whatsoever, of political interference – which , btw, is pretty much what you’re doing: swallowing and regurgitating the tiresome, dumb, “everybody knows…” chatter and making allegations of some sort of judicial interference. By saying that your drunk-driving friend was heavily penalized because “he wasn’t connected to anyone” you seem to be suggesting, without any evidence, that Jaffer got a break from a Crown prosecutor in Ontario *because* his spouse is a federal Conservative MP. Do you have any evidence for that, KevinB? Are you aware of the prosecution’s evidence in the case? Does it occur to you at all that he might have simply “lawyered up” big-time – it happens every day, all across the country, in cases that don’t involve the spouse of a politician – and made it difficult for the provincial prosecutor to get a conviction on the more serious charges?
And tell me, KevinB: Why would the Conservatives pull strings to get some jackass that they kicked out of the party treated lightly in a court of law? That’s not a rhetorical question; I’m asking you, what could even conceivably be the political benefit to the Conservatives to have Jaffer – who’s a pain in the ass, a jerk, and, even as a former MP, a liability to the party – be seen to be treated lightly in a court of law?
As for your friend who “had a bit to drink” and was then arrested the following morning for DUI as he drove to work, and received a 3-year suspension and a $10,000 fine, he must have been a repeat offender – i.e someone who has repeatedly put others’ lives at risk and stubbornly refuses to “get it.” IF he did get that stiff sentence after being arrested driving to work the morning after he was drinking, and he was a first-time offender, he had an idiot for a lawyer. IF the circumstances are as you describe – something I highly doubt – and your friend didn’t appeal his sentence, he should be re-arrested, this time for stupidity.
Was it a first-time offense, KevinB, or was your friend a repeat drunk-driver?
“As for your friend who “had a bit to drink” and was then arrested the following morning for DUI as he drove to work”.— Wow,it must a very big ‘bit to drink’. The body processes alcohol at about one ounce per hour. If this friend stopped drinking 8 hours before being arrested he must have had at least 12 drinks the night before to still fail a breathalyzer…… If the conservatives pulled strings to get Jaffer off these charges,does this not prove that the party does really care about people of colour ? (:-)
Oh, boo hoo hoo… if only that mean old CBC
would let conservatives do their drugs in peace.
I didn’t say my friend got a $10,000 fine – I said $10,000 in expenses. He paid over six grand for lawyers, a $3k fine, and had to pay over $1,500 to get his license back – some course he had to take, victim fee, reinstatement, etc. And he still didn’t end up driving for a year after that because of the requirement for an interlock device on his car, and because of the insurance.
This is not my closest buddy, so I don’t know if he had a previous conviction; he didn’t say. All I know is we were all at another friend’s place last fall watching another football game, and one guy wanted to go for more beer. The guy with the conviction said “Don’t go!”, and then spilled out the whole story. He was even warning some of the guys who were really pounding them back not to drive to work the next day.
But what got him really angry was telling the Maggie Trudeau story. His words were something like “Maybe if I’d f***ed a PM, I’d have gotten a walk too.”
Christie Blatchford in Saturday’s Globe made the point that the mob are acting as though Jaffer was guilty and got off – something they would rarely do with most other people caught in the same circumstances. They’d be going on about how “the system worked”, etc.
Liberals appear to be very concerned, as well as the NDP, that politics played a part in the administration of justice in the Jaffer case even though they are not privy to any details, facts or evidence. If they really want to build a case, and launch an enquiry, about the possible interference of justice, because of political ramifications, it would be best if they worked with the case of Margaret Trudeau, because they do have access to facts and evidence in her case. She was given a roadside breathalyzer which she failed and later registered .107 in the police station breathalyzer ( legal limit being .08).
The breathalyzer was never proven to be wrong or inaccurate so there is no doubt that she was impaired. However there must be doubt whether politics played a role in beating her obvious impairment charge. Liberals should latch on to this immediately if they want to provide Canadians with answers about political interference in the justice system because the evidence of Trudeau’s impairment is public and above question.
Yabbut the CBC has STANDARDS!
Just ask Vince Carlin:
http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/page/climategate.pdf
I know that Jaffer wasn’t drinking because he’s a muslim, and their faith prohibits them from drinking:-)))
or did he fall under the CONSERATIVE influence???
BTW; excellent post EBD
Geeze, Stan, Carlin’s talking about “anthropomorphic” global warming, not anthropogenic global warming. Seriously. That’s what it says, so give the guy a break. (To self: I wonder what anthropomorphic global warming looks like? Is it hairy and muscular? Thin and fragile? Old, stooped and wrinkled? Sultry, sexy and swaying?)