Will Ruby Dhalla Survive this Political Scandal?

[jdobbin]

I saw the Ruby show today and although there may be room for inaccuracies from both sides, it sounded very dubious when she said that she had nothing to do with ANYTHING - that it was ALL her brother and mother. I'll wait to see how things unfold a bit more but it seems to me that there have to be several other "caregivers" who have worked at the Dhalla household - the three complainants were short term......so it would be nice if Ruby could bring forward a list of other caregivers who could support her story of providing a caring, respectful environment.

A list produced for who and to given to who?

Sounds like this is a job for the courts.

[scribblet]

This is an example of mad dog frothy mouthed sociopathic behavoiur of right wingers who are prepared to smear. Produce some evidence in court or it is you who is the liar.

Wow, getting a little frothy yourself aren't you, repeating spurious smears like that really do lessen your credibility.

The http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/633292 is still on it, they say she has failed to clear the air. Coming from the Star it must be right.

[Keepitsimple]

A list produced for who and to given to who?

Sounds like this is a job for the courts.

A good bit of administrative deflection Dobbin.....but if she truly and honestly provides a caring and respectful work environment.....then surely she would be willing to bring forward a couple of former caregivers to support her contention. In fact, if her home was that caring and respectful, you'd think that some of the caregivers would voluntarily want to come forward to defend her. If you were in her shiny shoes, wouldn't that be just about the first thing that you would do.....if what she is saying is true? I know that's what I would do.

[Muddy]

I think Ruby played well for the camera yesterday. Her right wing conspiracy theory has legs. I mean it was that right wing newspaper the Toronto Star leading the way in cahoots with these nannys.

[jdobbin]

Wow, getting a little frothy yourself aren't you, repeating spurious smears like that really do lessen your credibility.

Repeating them in a committee that has very little power to determine what actually happened or compel under oath testimony in a she said/they said hearing is a smear campaign.

The committees are ill equipped to question people in what may be a civil or criminal offences. That is why we have the court system.

The http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/633292 is still on it, they say she has failed to clear the air. Coming from the Star it must be right.

The Star may also get sued for the campaign. I suspect some MPs will hide behind Parliamentary privilege.

[jdobbin]

A good bit of administrative deflection Dobbin.....but if she truly and honestly provides a caring and respectful work environment.....then surely she would be willing to bring forward a couple of former caregivers to support her contention. In fact, if her home was that caring and respectful, you'd think that some of the caregivers would voluntarily want to come forward to defend her. If you were in her shiny shoes, wouldn't that be just about the first thing that you would do.....if what she is saying is true? I know that's what I would do.

In other words: prove you are innocent.

[madmax]

What IS the truth you or I don't really know and the Tories also have an advantage to this also.

This has nothing to do with the Tories. The Tories are not responsible for the treatment these foreign nannies received. These Tories are not responsible for the underpayment handed off at a MacDonalds Restaraunt to one of the nannies. These Tories are not responsible for the Ontario Governments Failure to investigate.

The Ontario Liberals had just run a forum on the abuses of nannies, immigrant workers and the Agencie employment system. The Ontario Liberal Minister dropped the ball. Do NOT blame the Tories for the actions of a LIBERAL MP and the failure to act of the Ontario Liberal MPP.

The LPC and Dhalla are trying to put up a smoke and mirrors defence of a political order. There interest is in her holding her seat. Nothing more nothing less. The fact that Ignatieff has already discounted the nannies is disgraceful.

The CPC are as involved in the actions of Dhalla, like the LPC were involved in that incompetence of Bernier and security documents and a nightcap.

[Cuzzin E]

Blaming your own brother & mother for your problems is never a good defense. It furthers the image the public already have of her, a self-aggrandizing sociopath.

Whether these ladies were abused or not will probably never be proven, but it's really not the issue here. Were the nannys working illegally? That is very easy to prove, and I can't see Ruby surviving if this fact is established. Did Ruby really offer to use her influence to get the nannys citizenship? This is also a career-ender.

There is no way Ruby survives this, she should just quit & come live with me. I'll be her slave.

[madmax]

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/6...25785f6f3bf.pdf

Full Transcripts of the Star interview. I don't like her comments.

Edited May 13, 2009 by madmax

[madmax]

There is no way Ruby survives this, she should just quit & come live with me. I'll be her slave.

[capricorn]

Were the nannys working illegally? That is very easy to prove, and I can't see Ruby surviving if this fact is established.

This question has been settled. Their status as legally hired temporary workers has been established.

Did Ruby really offer to use her influence to get the nannys citizenship? This is also a career-ender.

That's one area the Commons Committee didn't touch. I don't think this will go anywhere.

There is no way Ruby survives this, she should just quit & come live with me. I'll be her slave.

On balance, I think Dhalla's testimony attracted more sympathy than did the nannies. I mean, look how beautiful and refined she looks...plus those truthful eyes. She won't quit but her constituents may not let her off in the next election.

Ruby is a slave to power and her own self-image. Do you want to be a slave to a slave?

[August1991]

Yes, I can imagine you wouldn't want to hear the argument of presumption of innocence.

Try this court.

In a criminal court, the State accuses an individual of a crime and the judge sjould assume the individual is innocent until the State provides contrary evidence.

In this case with Ruby Dhalla, the accusations come from three nannies. Either the nannies are lying or Dhalla is lying. Which side should get the benefit of the doubt?

Moreover, Ruby Dhalla is a politician. She chose to be in the public spotlight. I think we should hold politicians to a higher standard. If they can't maintain that standard, then they should return to private life and let someone else take on the job.

This is an example of mad dog frothy mouthed sociopathic behavoiur of right wingers who are prepared to smear. Produce some evidence in court or it is you who is the liar.

Come on, Dobbin. What do right wingers have to do with this?

Ruby Dhalla's behaviour appear to demonstrate the oldest Liberal stereotype. They pay lip service to helping ordinary people while making sure they get their large share of the pie. This is why this scandal is about more than Ruby Dhalla.

[Argus]

Wow, getting a little frothy yourself aren't you, repeating spurious smears like that really do lessen your credibility.

Not sure that's even possible...

[Keepitsimple]

In other words: prove you are innocent.

If my career and good name were being slandered - as she implies, sure, I would want to do anything I could to quickly turn the tables.....the longer this plays out, the more the allegations will appear to stick....and I can see so better way than having other caregivers support her contention that the Dhalla family provided a loving, caring and respectful working environment. Don't you think that makes sense?

[capricorn]

In this case with Ruby Dhalla, the accusations come from three nannies. Either the nannies are lying or Dhalla is lying. Which side should get the benefit of the doubt?

Your comment got me thinking about whether the Commons Committee involvement in the Dhalla case is of any benefit to the broader question of the employment rights of nannies.

Imagine the reaction of other nannies with stories of abuse to tell, seeing the sometimes tearful public testimony of the nannies. Then reading in the press that the honesty of the nannies is being questioned. How motivated would they be to come forward with accusations about their own employers? I would think they would not want to place themselves in a situation such as the nannies who went public. They may well feel intimidated by the whole process, especially that they are in this country at the pleasure of our government.

Perhaps this Commons inquiry has done more harm than good with regard to outreaching to nannies who feel aggrieved.

[Mr.Canada]

She barely won that riding last time out and next election she'll be slaughtered if she runs again. That riding will be Blue as will much of the 905. People need a PM who can say no once in a while not give everyone everything under the sun. Mr. Martin and Mr. Dion tried to please everyone and look what happened....lol.

[jdobbin]

If my career and good name were being slandered - as she implies, sure, I would want to do anything I could to quickly turn the tables.....the longer this plays out, the more the allegations will appear to stick....and I can see so better way than having other caregivers support her contention that the Dhalla family provided a loving, caring and respectful working environment. Don't you think that makes sense?

So anyone who wants to stop from being slandered has to prove their innocent? I think that is ridiculous and it is certainly not how Harper has reacted when he has felt his reputation has been attacked.

This is a they say/she says problem that is best suited for the courts.

[Mr.Canada]

So anyone who wants to stop from being slandered has to prove their innocent? I think that is ridiculous and it is certainly not how Harper has reacted when he has felt his reputation has been attacked.

This is a they say/she says problem that is best suited for the courts.

I wonder what she's hiding?

[jdobbin]

In a criminal court, the State accuses an individual of a crime and the judge sjould assume the individual is innocent until the State provides contrary evidence.

In this case with Ruby Dhalla, the accusations come from three nannies. Either the nannies are lying or Dhalla is lying. Which side should get the benefit of the doubt?

Neither.

Moreover, Ruby Dhalla is a politician. She chose to be in the public spotlight. I think we should hold politicians to a higher standard. If they can't maintain that standard, then they should return to private life and let someone else take on the job.

And that means they can be attacked with whatever accusation anyone wants to make? I think not and you know that isn't so.

Come on, Dobbin. What do right wingers have to do with this?

Bringing a they said/she said issue to committee isn't going to shed light on anything. Take it to court.

The frothy, angry right wing is having a field day. Certainly takes people's mind off actual money being given to a former PM with no paperwork or any indication of services rendered.

Ruby Dhalla's behaviour appear to demonstrate the oldest Liberal stereotype. They pay lip service to helping ordinary people while making sure they get their large share of the pie. This is why this scandal is about more than Ruby Dhalla.

This demonstrates the oldest of Conservative stereotypes. Smear, attack and gutter politics.

[jdobbin]

I wonder what she's hiding?

I wonder what they're hiding.

[jdobbin]

Not sure that's even possible...

Speaking of someone with no credibility issues.

[Mr.Canada]

So anyone who wants to stop from being slandered has to prove their innocent? I think that is ridiculous and it is certainly not how Harper has reacted when he has felt his reputation has been attacked.

This is a they say/she says problem that is best suited for the courts.

I wonder what she's hiding?

[Mr.Canada]

Neither.

And that means they can be attacked with whatever accusation anyone wants to make? I think not and you know that isn't so.

Bringing a they said/she said issue to committee isn't going to shed light on anything. Take it to court.

The frothy, angry right wing is having a field day. Certainly takes people's mind off actual money being given to a former PM with no paperwork or any indication of services rendered.

This demonstrates the oldest of Conservative stereotypes. Smear, attack and gutter politics.

Uhhm, the Liberals started the attack ads with MArtins campaign of "Stephan Harper wants to put guns in our streets crap". You Liberals are just pissed cause us Tories are better at them then you are. Get over yourselves.

[WIP]

. Either the nannies are lying or Dhalla is lying. Which side should get the benefit of the doubt?

Exactly. There is no evidence, just a Conservative smear campaign launched to try to win seats before the election is called!

[Mr.Canada]

Exactly. There is no evidence, just a Conservative smear campaign launched to try to win seats before the election is called!

Hrm, I think it was a group of homecare professionals that brought this to the light of day. It has nothing to do with the Conservatives. Try to stick to the facts. I know it's tough but please, do try.