I always enjoy Andrew Cohen's take on things. Maybe that's because he's an ex-Montrealer. But he's also a man of considerable political and international experience. This is what he writes about the SNC-Lavalin Affair:
If the answer is clear, the cost is not. Wilson-Raybould had to leave a government that had put “inappropriate” pressure on her as minister of justice. In her j’accuse, she airily invoked Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre.
“I am a truth-teller,” she declares, claiming a monopoly on truth, even if her truth brings down her government.
Jane Philpott says her principles will not allow her to stay in cabinet, either. She was a star of the government – a confident practitioner with a social conscience and an affecting story of personal loss. It is about integrity, she says.
So, both Philpott and Wilson-Raybould have walked away. Maybe they know something we don’t. Maybe they deserve the Profile in Courage Award. Or maybe this is about impulse, affront and self-righteousness – how to feel sanctimonious today while things fall apart tomorrow.
Now they are playing Samson, not Delilah. They are determined to pull down the temple on themselves.
Wilson-Raybould talks about "her truth." But one's version of the truth is affected by one's experience -- which means that truth has different shades:
In life, though, there is more than one truth. Both former ministers have yet to prove why their truth is so superior that they have lost confidence in their government, and why their colleagues and Canadians should, too.
So now, persuaded of their own wisdom, these stern daughters of the voice of God have put everything they’ve achieved in cabinet at risk. This is either naïveté or presumption.
If we accept their judgement, the prime minister has to go. Do they want his job? That might explain things.
Tom Walkom writes that Trudeau's truth and Wilson-Raybould and Philpott's truths are mutually exclusive. They can't be finessed. Someone has got to go.
We'll see.
13 comments:
Trudeau and Turner, Turner and Chretien, Chretien and Martin, Martin and Copps and now Junior and the player yet to be named
- They just had to have it
- And it had to be a majority
- And it just had to be a big one
- So Paul Dewer get out of the way because here comes what’s-her-name
- And that goes for all the rest of you because we’ve got sunshine coming out of our ass
- And this is what they’re doing with it
- A natural opposing opposition suddenly likely to be insufficiently divided while it would have kept on chopping itself to pieces and chewing on its snot if it hadn’t been interrupted
- And the conscience-of-Canada knitting circle not quite as confused as its leader but enough that it doesn’t matter
- They’re giving us back to the CRAPPERS and this time to a gang of them more stupid-evil than the last one (maybe even on the “evil” and lots more on the “stupid”)
- We should have known they’d find a way
Our natural governing circle jerk is really pissing me off this time. I can’t (or can’t be bothered to) put it into sentences.
At last! Someone with moxie enough to question the aspirations of these morally superior people who will bring down a government around all of us just because they feel compromised. I have questioned the integrity of those who will put this entire country into turmoil just because their feelings have been hurt. Just by declaring that you will run as a liberal in the upcoming election doesn't make things right with your constituents. Ask Leona Alsleve. They must be partly responsible for the fall out that will occur as a result of this disaster. Once again we find ourselves with little or no choice among our leaders and once again, because of failed promises, we will be compromised severely come October. Remember Muldoons "hail Mary" play and through his historic benevolence gave us our first female Prime Minister. How about Junior in a last ditch effort at Feminism and rescuing the brand, gives us our first Indigenous one. That ought to bury the .... Vote Green with a clear conscience.
I difficulty with the perspective of different truths, Owen. There is only one truth, but there are varying interpretations and spins of the truth depending one's biases. Having more than one truth is akin to Kellyanne Conway's alternative facts.
RG
What is really disappointing in all of this, John, is watching history repeat itself.
This is all very short-sighted, zoombats. Vision -- real vision -- is hard to find these days.
Agreed, RG. The facts are indisputable. But it's in their interpretation that the battle emerges.
These "truths" are actually "viewpoints" and interpretations. We're talking interpreting someone's actions relative to law. And, it's not always black and white. Have you ever noticed when there's a split decision at the Supreme Court of Canada. It happens.
Usually this kind of political infighting goes on behind closed doors - or, at least not in the general public's face.
I still wonder why JWR didn't resign immediately upon her "demotion"? She waited 3 weeks.
Did somebody get to her? Someone experienced in political warfare? Someone with a grudge to settle against JT? While JWR and Philpott are great in their profession, they're neophytes in politics. I think they're being used.
UU
Interesting speculation, UU. I note that Sheila Copps says something similar.
In all this talk about his truth and her truth, it's easy to lose track of the facts.
* SNC lobbyists met with members of the Trudeau government more than 50 times in 20 months to get DPAs introduced into Canadian law. A DPA would allow SNC to avoid a criminal conviction by paying a fine and complying with conditions.
* After JW-R decided not to interfere with the Director of Public Prosecution's decision not to offer SNC a DPA, 11 people from the PMO, the Privy Council and the finance minister's office tried to get her to change her mind.
* When she wouldn't interfere in the SNC prosecution, on Jan. 7 she was shuffled out of the AG position and demoted.
We can conclude from these facts that SNC was unusually persuasive in getting the Trudeau Libs to set aside the rule of law in their favour. On countless incidents when the company has been persuasive, millions of dollars have changed hands - that's why they've been criminally charged. Aren't we seeing just a sophisticated version of handing the prosecutor a brown envelope stuffed with cash?
Cap
I did not know that. I limit my exposure to the “news” since it is so full of crap nowadays. She’s an experienced politico.
UU
It's an undeniable fact that SNC is very good at offering bribes, Cap. The real question is "What is the appropriate punishment for this behaviour?" That question should be what drives that decision. We seem to be losing sight of that question.
Unless you're the Queen of Hearts, the first question to answer is are they guilty of a crime? Only then do we get to appropriate punishment. DPAs never answer the first question, and that's why they're so ruinous to the rule of law.
Cap
Plea bargains are standard legal procedure. But they first involve pleading guilty to a crime. It seems that DPAs start at the other end of things -- the conequences of crime and not the admission of crime.
Post a Comment