Will Ruby Dhalla Survive this Political Scandal?

August1991 · May 9, 2009

The reaction to "Nannygate," as it's been dubbed by some, remains split. Some are sure Brampton-Springate Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla is innocent. Others doubt her veracity. And a few simply don't know what to make of it all.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has no such qualms. He believes his friend will be proven innocent of all the allegations. "She has a right to defend herself and she needs to be given the chance to present the facts on this matter and so we wait clarity on the facts because I as a leader can't act simply on the basis of newspaper headlines and allegations, I have to work on the basis of facts."

Link

In many political scandals, particularly if the politician has any talent, the truth gets buried under umpteen various facts and details and eventually, the whole thing blows over. Sometimes the media ignores certain facts and sometimes the politician's popularity with the target public is unwaivering. Sometimes by sheer luck another bigger news story makes everyine forget the scandal.

Richard Nixon wrote a book about surviving scandal. Trudeau was a master at getting himself or his cabinet colleagues out of various fixes. (Who paid for the 24 Sussex swimming pool anyway?) Jean Chretien, despite all the innuendo, ignored the noise and moved on.

So, here's my question: Can Ruby Dhall take the heat and can she survive this scandal? Or, will she quit?

Her guilt or innocence is almost irrelevant. After all, she will be tried in the court of public opinion and in such a court, truth is only one witness among many. This is really a question of her skills as a politician in the heat of the kitchen. This question is relevant because she apparently aspires to more.

----

I was not impressed with her use of a lawyer. IMV, a politician worthy of the name should not have a big brother. (By some accounts, Judy Sgro advised her to get a lawyer.)

I did like the strategy of having her say nice things and someone else say nasty things:

"The last week has been a difficult and trying time for both myself and my family," Dhalla said. "Anyone that has ever entered our home has been treated with love, with care, with compassion and respect."
Dhalla said she is "the daughter of a loving, caring single-mother, an immigrant herself. And I have seen first-hand the challenges and understand the challenges immigrants and women face in Canada and around the world. I, myself, have dedicated a great part of my own personal life to working on these issues."

...

Levitt alleged that the foreign workers had concocted their allegations in a "purposeful attempt to destroy Dr. Dhalla's career and credibility."

He would not say why the women would want to harm Dhalla, a chiropractor before entering politics, but he strongly implied they had worked together in an "organized" and "vicious" conspiracy.

Toronto Star

I think it may be wise to pin the blame on the brother since this makes it plain that she's no nepotist and she's willing to sacrifice family.

Edited May 9, 2009 by August1991

Oleg Bach · May 9, 2009

If she's willing to sacrafice family - then she is willing for reasons of ambition and glory to sacrafice the national family. This will be like a complex litigation where.. manopulation of...chronos - facts and fiction will be altered and complexity will become the santuary of scoundrels - by the time it's over...we will be so confused that she will look like an angel...and the lawyers will be rich.

capricorn · May 9, 2009

So, here's my question: Can Ruby Dhall take the heat and can she survive this scandal? Or, will she quit?

Doesn't Ignatieff have a say in whether she stays or goes? I would think so. IMO she would not go willingly. If she resigns it will be at Ignatieff's insistence.

I think it may be wise to pin the blame on the brother since this makes it plain that she's no nepotist and she's willing to sacrifice family.

I wonder how her constituents will view her sacrificing her family to ensure her political survival. I would think the Sikh community is big on family values and on standing together united. Dumping all responsibility on the brother (or the mother) may not sit well with her constituents.

My sense is that she will survive as an MP in the present Parliament. I'm not pre-judging her guilt or innocence here, but even if she is cleared of all the allegations and runs in the next election, I'm not so sure she'll be re-elected.

August1991 · May 9, 2009

If she's willing to sacrafice family - then she is willing for reasons of ambition and glory to sacrafice the national family. This will be like a complex litigation where.. manopulation of...chronos - facts and fiction will be altered and complexity will become the santuary of scoundrels - by the time it's over...we will be so confused that she will look like an angel...and the lawyers will be rich.

To pick a few recent examples, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton all, at various times, disowned siblings for their own political ambitions. Heck, to keep power, Clinton made his wife go through hell.

Oleg, on the contrary, I would prefer a politician who is willing to sacrifice family rather than one who populates government by nepotism.

-----

I agree however that if Dhalla is to survive, she will probably have to obfuscate, bait and switch. Whether she is innocent in fact is irrelevant. It is how the public perceives her that matters.

The question is whether she has the political talent to rise to the occasion and convince the public.

August1991 · May 9, 2009

Doesn't Ignatieff have a say in whether she stays or goes? I would think so. IMO she would not go willingly. If she resigns it will be at Ignatieff's insistence.

Eisenhower famously said about Nixon in 1952: "He'll have to be cleaner than a hound's tooth." IOW, Eisenhower cut Nixon loose and left him to fend for himself, alone. If Ignatieff does as Eisenhower, then we'll really see the mettle of Dhalla.

I wonder how her constituents will view her sacrificing her family to ensure her political survival. I would think the Sikh community is big on family values and on standing together united. Dumping all responsibility on the brother (or the mother) may not sit well with her constituents.
My sense is that she will survive as an MP in the present Parliament. I'm not pre-judging her guilt or innocence here, but even if she is cleared of all the allegations and runs in the next election, I'm not so sure she'll be re-elected.

Well, she must first win the support of her constituents. But I think Ruby Dhalla has bigger ambitions. Her court of opinion is Canada at large.

capricorn · May 9, 2009

If Ignatieff does as Eisenhower, then we'll really see the mettle of Dhalla.

If holding a press conference accompanied by her lawyer and essentially letting him do all the talking is a measure of her mettle, I don't think she'll get very far solo. The lawyer alluding to a Conservative conspiracy to destroy her didn't help her one bit. Being cast as a victim does nothing to put her political strength on display.

But I think Ruby Dhalla has bigger ambitions.

Would that endear her more, or less to Ignatieff, or to any Liberal eying the future leadership of the party. Here is a golden opportunity for Ignatieff to sweep one potential opponent out of the way of his favoured successor.

Her court of opinion is Canada at large.

Indeed.

jdobbin · May 9, 2009

Her guilt or innocence is almost irrelevant.

Certainly not to the Conservatives.

I was not impressed with her use of a lawyer. IMV, a politician worthy of the name should not have a big brother.

Harper uses one. Were you not impressed then?

August1991 · May 9, 2009

Certainly not to the Conservatives.

Whether Conservatives think Dhalla is guilty is largely irrelevant.

In an ideal world, we would know the truth of everything. We don't live in such a world and so the question is whether Canadians think that she is guilty.

Harper uses one. Were you not impressed then?

Does Harper use a lawyer/sidekick for serious press conferences?

No, Harper answers questions alone - as Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush (both), Pierre Trudeau, Rene Levesque and Barack Obama do/did. Politicians face the music.

-----

I'm intrigued by another idea.

Is this an Ignatieff plan to cleanse the federal Liberal Party? If Ignatieff shows that he's a tough leader, make amends for past indescretions, does this help him?

Why is the Toronto Star behind this vendetta?

Edited May 9, 2009 by August1991

Smallc · May 9, 2009

We don't live in such a world and so the question is whether Canadians think that she is guilty.

No, we live in a country where it matters that she is innocent until proven guilty and only guilty if it is proven. Canadians may be mad for a time, but if she's found innocent, that anger will most likely vanish quickly. If she's guilty, the anger will stay...as it should.

August1991 · May 9, 2009

No, we live in a country where it matters that she is innocent until proven guilty and only guilty if it is proven. Canadians may be mad for a time, but if she's found innocent, that anger will most likely vanish quickly. If she's guilty, the anger will stay...as it should.

Uh, our politics don't work the way our judiciial system works.

Politically, the onus is on Dhalla to prove her innocence - not for voters to prove her guilt. (We have many people capable of sitting in the House of Commons. It is up to them to prove their competence, not for us to test their ability.)

As a citizen, you are innocent until proven guilty. As an MP, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Smallc · May 9, 2009

As an MP, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Yes, the people usually do go all crazy and consider someone guilty immediately, but they tend to back down If the person is found innocent (how many people hate Ralph Goodale for income trusts today? Well, they must have in 2006, because it lost the Liberals the election). If she is found innocent, she shouldn't have a problem. If she's guilty, then she's guilty.

Oleg Bach · May 9, 2009

Exactly - no one has been charged with a crimminal or civil offense. This is about reputation and presentation..either this person is what they present or the misrepresent - and if a representative of the people misrepresents ANYTHING- that's called a liar - oooops - she should do well in politics. :rolleyes:

August1991 · May 9, 2009

Yes, the people usually do go all crazy and consider someone guilty immediately, but they tend to back down If the person is found innocent (how many people hate Ralph Goodale for income trusts today? Well, they must have in 2006, because it lost the Liberals the election). If she is found innocent, she shouldn't have a problem. If she's guilty, then she's guilty.

In a democracy, we should hold our representatives to a higher standard.

We should assume they are guilty until they prove otherwise.

----

Another aside. How many such scandals have there been under this Harper government?

Under Harper, has anyone hired an illegal nanny, built a hotel, put money in a trust fund, given a visa to a friend? Have there been any reports of contracts given to advertising firms? Or kickbacks to political parties? How many MPs have faced questions such as Dhalla now faces?

Let me be partisan for a moment: Under Harper, federal politics are cleaner.

betsy · May 9, 2009

Guilty or not, I predict Dhalla will be pressured to resign....and the immense pressure will come from the Liberals.

If this scandal happened during the time of Chretien, she would've survive it intact....they'd just let it die down.

Ignatieff is determined to win in the next election. The Liberal Party is determined to get back into power. Having Dhalla around will only remind Canadians that the Liberal Party is synonymous with corruptions, abuse of power and sense of entitlement.

Edited May 9, 2009 by betsy

jdobbin · May 9, 2009

Whether Conservatives think Dhalla is guilty is largely irrelevant.
In an ideal world, we would know the truth of everything. We don't live in such a world and so the question is whether Canadians think that she is guilty.

Conservatives leading the large that she is guilty isn't irrelevant and is what Don Martin calls distasteful. It could easily backfire.

Does Harper use a lawyer/sidekick for serious press conferences?

No, Harper let his lawyer do the talking for him.

No, Harper answers questions alone - as Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush (both), Pierre Trudeau, Rene Levesque and Barack Obama do/did. Politicians face the music.

Really. Harper answered questions about his lawsuit against the Liberals?

Smallc · May 9, 2009

In a democracy, we should hold our representatives to a higher standard.
We should assume they are guilty until they prove otherwise.

Maybe we should hang her for being a witch?

Let me be partisan for a moment: Under Harper, federal politics are cleaner.

Let me be partisan for a moment: You only see it that way because you want to see it that way.

August1991 · May 9, 2009

Maybe we should hang her for being a witch?

IMV, private citizens are entitled to the presumption of innocence, not politicians who choose the public stage.

Let me be partisan for a moment: You only see it that way because you want to see it that way.

Smallc, you are perfectly right to dislike Stephen Harper because he hasn't legalized marijuana or because he hasn't forbid gay marriage.

But it seems to me that Harper's government is the "cleanest" in living memory. I'll stand corrected but no minister has had to resign because of sponsorship contracts, travel claims, limousines, nannies, unpaid taxes, BDC payouts to friends, hospitality receipts, cash envelopes, stripper visas, influence peddling or any of the other usual abuses of political office and government power.

We give politicians power. They are obliged to use it carefully.

Smallc · May 9, 2009

But it seems to me that Harper's government is the "cleanest" in living memory.

Stephen Harper's government is the most secretive in recent memory, and that doesn't suggest anything clean to me.

Also, whether or not he chooses to legalize a substance that I've never used in my life is completely irrelevant to me.

Argus · May 9, 2009

Stephen Harper's government is the most secretive in recent memory

If by "recent memory" you mean in the last couple of years, ie, since he was elected, well yeah okay.

But Chretien was every bit as secretive.

You just didn't care then, because he's a Liberal.

Molly · May 9, 2009

You mean, like Teflon?

Except... they lie. About the most important things.

They climb on a moral high horse, and before the words have fully left their mouths, do the very thing they condemned, except bigger and moreso, and absolutely deliberately.

I'll never, ever forgivethe Emerson affair, and I'll never forget the Cadman affair.

IMO, that's not clean. It sets a new standard for foul.

Argus · May 9, 2009

She will not resign voluntarily. She will not - ever - admit that she has done anything wrong. Admitting error is not the Liberal way, and the manner in which Liberals here have reacted it's clear that nothing short of outright video of her beating her maids - and preferably using many ethnic slurs along the way - could possibly shift them into admitting she is anything less than perfect. And while this is a case of a rich woman abusing the poor and making them work for far less than minimal wages - hey, she's a "brown" person, so no liberal will dare criticize her for that.

Imagine if she was rich, white and conservative? What an uproar that would be!

As to the riding. It is heavily immigrant, mostly Indian, and they won't look at this sort of thing in the same way as we do. It won't bother them at all.

Smallc · May 9, 2009

The federal Information Commissioner is warning that Canadians' ability to get information from their government has reached a dire state.
The Harper Conservatives now routinely delay requests for government documents – a right of Canadians under the law – well beyond the 30 days that the Access to Information Act requires.

Six out of the 10 governments departments reviewed by the commissioner's office received failing grades.

“I do believe that its results provide a grim picture of the federal government's access to information regime,” Information Commissioner Robert Marleau says in a special report to Parliament.

Government secrecy ‘grim,' watchdog says

Harper promised the legislation would usher in a whole new era of government openness and accountability.
It has certainly done that.

Last week, Parliament's independent watchdog of federal secrecy tore a strip off the Harper administration for what may well be the least transparent government in decades.

In a special report to Parliament, Information Commissioner Robert Marleau, once criticized as more lapdog than attack-mutt, suddenly bared his teeth and went for the government's jugular.

Muzzle Master

Uh huh...it's my memory that's bad.

Smallc · May 9, 2009

Imagine if she was rich, white and conservative? What an uproar that would be!

I assure you that my reaction would be no different.

Oleg Bach · May 9, 2009

If Ruby had two aging parents in need of a "care giver" - I could see her possibly having two "nannys" - but she has but one parent in need of care - so what was the second nanny for?

Argus · May 9, 2009

Uh huh...it's my memory that's bad.

I'm not saying the Conservative government isn't secretive. I simply am not glossing over the secrecy of the Chretien government - which was sued by its own privacy commissioner, btw