Thursday, February 12, 2009

Stephen Harper’s prima facie guilt


Stephen Harper didn’t leave much open for interpretation when he confessed that:

"But the, uh, of the offer to Chuck [Cadman] was that it was only to replace, uh, financial, uh, considerations, he might lose due to an election."

This is a clear acknowledgement that Stephen Harper had first hand knowledge that an attempt had been made by his party to influence Chuck Cadman’s vote in Parliament with financial inducements.

Any lingering doubt about the occurrence of such an event was eliminated by corroborating statements of Chuck Cadman’s wife, daughter and son-in-law.

Such an event, that goes without thorough investigation and punishment is intolerable. Meanwhile it needs to be acknowledged that the level of corruption in any society is a direct function of that society’s tolerance for corruption.

Is it the wish of Canadian people that their elected officials be subjected to bribes, and that those who proffer the bribes be exempt from the criminal laws that prohibit such subversive activity?

This tolerance for bribery was, in fact, Stephen Harper’s initial knee jerk reaction when the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal first broke and when he stated:

“This [public inquiry route] is not a route that I want to go down, and I don’t think that if the Liberal Party thought twice about it, it is a power they would want to give me.”

This statement was nothing more that a public statement that Canada should be acceptant of the type of conduct exhibited by Brian Mulroney concerning the acceptance of cash payments while in office, and no doubt Stephen Harper would advocate that such a laissez faire attitude should also apply to the Conservative Party’s failed attempt to bribe Chuck Cadman.

The essence of Harper’s argument was that the Liberals too, should see value in keeping these scandals from seeing the light of day.

Except, that clearly wasn’t what occurred with the Cadman scandal. The Liberals went after this issue in a manner that serves Canadians’ best interests and in preserving our institutions like Parliament.

Therefore the key strategy for Harper was to raise the stakes, whereby the Liberals would see value in being “hushed” or in becoming “self censored” Hence the lawsuit that was launched by the Conservative’s against the Liberals, ostensibly to clear Harper’s good name.

This lawsuit served to keep the contents of this scandal out of the last election. The prospect of ongoing legal costs to be borne by the Liberals in defending themselves against this frivolous lawsuit seems to have worked, because they have now agreed to settle the case, by simply dropping the case.

Meanwhile there was much more evidence in the form of email correspondence and other testimony that would have corroborated the guilt or innocence of Stephen Harper, Doug Finlay, and Tom Flanagan, that may never see the light of day.

Now Harper has rationalized his dropping of the case on the basis that Stephen Dion is no longer the leader of the Liberal Party. Strange rationale, since the lawsuit was a lawsuit against the Liberal Party and not Stephen Dion per se, and how does Stephane Dion’s new role serve to protect Harper’s good name against the charges of bribery? What became of Harper’s righteous indignation now that he has dropped the lawsuit, as those charges against his "good" name remain unresolved and inconclusive?

The unresolved and unpunished nature of these self-confessed bribery events admitted to by our Prime Minister, is wholly unacceptable to me and should be wholly unacceptable to all Canadians.

The RCMP needs to thoroughly investigate this matter. Failure to do so will simply mean that Harper has succeeded in raising Canadians’ level of tolerance for corruption by their elected officials to levels in keeping of some third world dictatorship My, what a legacy that is?

A legacy that can only be brought about by a crooked politician and the passivity of Canadians. It's your choice to do something or to do nothing. To be tolerant of corruption or to be intolerant of corruption. I choose the latter by expressing my outrage in this blog. What do you intend to do?


4 comments:

Dr Mike said...

How can you have any faith or respect for a guy like Harper--he bends the truth , he tells half-truths , & he acts in his own best interests.

I thought the Prime Minister was supposed to be a person above reproach , someone we could look up to , & someone who would look out for the citizens who cannot look after themselves.

This guy does not cut it & needs to be exited from the stage ASAP.

Dr Mike Popovich.

Ps---the Mountie motto used to be "we always get our man" so it is time to shape up boys & get to the bottom of this scandal--nothing is served by letting this rest .

Anonymous said...

I agree totally!
 
                                                       Willy

Anonymous said...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday he dropped his libel lawsuit against the Liberals only because Stéphane Dion is no longer party leader, and not because he has anything to hide in the Chuck Cadman affair.
...
“I have already said all I have to say about this case. I would note that the leader of the Liberal Party is no longer in his position. Maybe the Leader of the NDP had something to do with that too,” Mr. Harper said, alluding to failed plans for a coalition government led by Mr. Dion and Mr. Layton.
We know that Mr. Dion was not a party to Mr. Harper's defamation action, so the fact that Dion is no longer leader of the Liberal party, which was sued, is patently irrelevant:
In a $2.5-million lawsuit filed by Harper’s lawyers in Ontario Superior Court on March 13, the documents named only the Liberal party and did not mention Dion or the other two MPs. This suggests he will pursue his libel suit against only the party and not the politicians.
Further, Ignatieff was initially named, along with Dion and Goodale, by Harper in his notice of libel, served prior to the filing of the official claim with the court. So Ignatieff was as much a part of the suit as Dion ever was in that sense. To suggest that the dropping of the lawsuit was linked only to Dion and his departure is, to put it mildly, disingenuous.

Harper's clearly trying to spin Dion's departure as a convenient cover, to give the impression that the suit was an old war between him and Dion that it's time to let go. And in tying it to Dion, true to form, he subtly insinuates that the lawsuit was somehow Mr. Dion's fault. He seems to have run with the notion in the Globe's editorial this morning, picking up on their handy framing of the suit as the Dion Liberals having overplayed their hand. What nonsense. We know he dropped the case just before he had to ante up with his evidence and the possibility of losing was looming large. But if he can get some more mileage out of Mr. Dion, he's always up for that.

Harper again disappoints. When he has to speak, unscripted, he always shows us exactly who he is.

Impolitic

Cari said...

He was guilty, is why he did not want the extra data, memos, emails etc. to come to light. He committed perjury, as well. Didn't the RCMP inspect Mrs Cadman and found nothing?