Guergis Resigns from Cabinet - RCMP Investigation into Alleged Miscond

[Molly]

Dave: I've always felt that the supporters of the reform movement were overly optimistic towards its prospects. I honestly feel that when they joined the PC party they had peaked and that they wouldn’t have made the inroads in SW Ontario that they needed to form a government. This is strictly based on my current perception of course as I was living in NB at the time this all took place. Suffice it to say out East the Reform party was largely viewed as a Western version of the BLOC party. In fact many folks out there called it the Western BLOC.

I was living in Saskatchewan, and that's how I saw it, too. The actual reforms proposed meant very little to their popularity in the west. In fact only political junkies knew or cared what they were! Reform was 'Not Liberal, and not PC'- a knee-jerk protest party like WCC and Unionest and any of a half a dozen others, with Manning- a recognizeable name and some political savvy to make the wheels actually turn.

Many were disgruntled by the very attempt to charm Ontario.

[ToadBrother]

I was living in Saskatchewan, and that's how I saw it, too. The actual reforms proposed meant very little to their popularity in the west. In fact only political junkies knew or cared what they were! Reform was 'Not Liberal, and not PC'- a knee-jerk protest party like WCC and Unionest and any of a half a dozen others, with Manning- a recognizeable name and some political savvy to make the wheels actually turn.

Many were disgruntled by the very attempt to charm Ontario.

I couldn't stand the social conservatism rampant in Reform, and yet I voted for them in every election that they won. It was because of the constitutional reforms they proposed that I put my X on the Reform candidate's ballot, even if the candidate was a pretty intolerant religious bigot. Mainly I was impressed by Manning, a man who I still feel has an enormous amount of integrity, and truly believed what he spoke. I didn't agree with his social conservatism either, but he was a decent man, and that meant something.

Never the less, there were a considerable number of members of Reform who were not nearly as egalitarian as Manning. The problem here, as we're seeing with the Tea Party, is that it's a lot easier to choose your enemies than your friends. My riding had every bigoted malcontent running to Reform, and I know for a fact that many ridings had the same effect, even where the Reform candidate was anything but a extreme social conservative.

In reality, they never had a chance. Grassroots organizations like Reform have to properly evolve into a focused entity, and Manning, being true to his philosophy, didn't believe in creating the top-down structure. It meant that Reform could never really control its message. Manning could spend a year building the party up only have to an idiot blowhard like Randy White knock the whole house down. Because Reform was an unknown quantity that had largely started as a protest party, Central Canada eyed it with great suspicion. The Liberals weren't good guys, but Chretien's years were an ample display of the philosophy of better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Harper, by the sheer force of his will and his willingness to shed virtually everything Reform stood for, resembles much more than the "strong" Prime Ministers of the past four decades. He has been able to control the Tory message, though it seems the political climate is such that he is unlikely to get a majority out of it. I don't think that's his fault any more than the Liberals can reasonably blame Iggy. It's difficult to see with the Bloc still so strong in Quebec that anything but a razor-thin majority could be gained.

[ToadBrother]

White, straight, well-to-do, (nominally) Christian men, as a group, seem to have a real hate thing going for human rights commissions.

HRCs are quite a lot more popular among those who are brown, gay, poor, nonChristian or female. Funny how that works.

I'm against them because the violate the division of powers, have poor standards of evidence, and basically leave the accused essentially in a situation where even if he or she wins, there's little capacity to recoup legal fees.

Taking a comedian to a tribunal because he makes anti-lesbian slurs against a couple of drunken hecklers strikes me as demonstrating everything that is wrong with these tribunals. If the speech ain't horrible enough to actually end up in a courtroom, I see no reason that the accused should be prosecuted at all. What's more, courts have appropriate standards of evidence.

Why would anybody be onside for legislatively created pseudo-courts?

[wyly]

Taking a comedian to a tribunal because he makes anti-lesbian slurs against a couple of drunken hecklers strikes me as demonstrating everything that is wrong with these tribunals. If the speech ain't horrible enough to actually end up in a courtroom, I see no reason that the accused should be prosecuted at all. What's more, courts have appropriate standards of evidence.

I had a cop friend tell me being provoked was considered as a defense, I don't know if it would apply in the case of hecklers... What the comedian did was probably wrong if it was a mean spirited attack but if he was attacked verbally while he was working I would consider it excusable for him to hit back verbally...what right did these women have for disrupting a performance that others had paid to see...

[ToadBrother]

I had a cop friend tell me being provoked was considered as a defense, I don't know if it would apply in the case of hecklers... What the comedian did was probably wrong if it was a mean spirited attack but if he was attacked verbally while he was working I would consider it excusable for him to hit back verbally...what right did these women have for disrupting a performance that others had paid to see...

My issue isn't with social etiquette, it's with a clear attempt to censor what the comedian said.

[Moonlight Graham]

hottie???? ....you need to get out more..

She beats Elizabeth may

[M.Dancer]

She beats Elizabeth may

Way to set the bar low....Joe Clark beats May..

[Molly]

Re: Reform and Harper--

Ditto wrt hating the social conservatism but voting for them anyway, and with an abiding respect for Manning. However, I categorically disagree(d) with most of the so-called reforms they were proposing.

My message in so voting was 'Take note! Canada doesn't end at Thunder Bay!' Between Trudeau's open hostility to the west, and Mulroney's disinterest in and presumption of it, a serious re-education for both parties was wildly overdue. Alberta, at least, now registers in public attention, but the devotion to all things large or small-c conservative renders that attention less effective than a little 'What have you done for me lately?' would be.

As to HRCs... meh. Mostly, I agree with you. If the truly egregious crap commonly ended up in court, there'd be no need for them at all, and they are a truly bizarre construct-- an ugly tattered patch, and not a seamless part of the whole.

In the end, though, they've done far more good than harm. Legal doesn't always mean right. Sometimes the scales need a little help to honestly balance.

[ToadBrother]

In the end, though, they've done far more good than harm. Legal doesn't always mean right. Sometimes the scales need a little help to honestly balance.

But if it isn't illegal, or it isn't actionable in the civil sense, then I fail to see why it should be the business of the state at all. In other words, if the comedian committed no crime, and committed no slander that the two women could seek reparations from in civil court, why is anything happening at all?

[wyly]

My issue isn't with social etiquette, it's with a clear attempt to censor what the comedian said.

comedians can say quite a bit because of the spirit it's delivered, they're comedians...

Russell Peters is a perfect example, no one is better at skewering ethnic groups than Peters and he sells out everywhere he goes and his audience is primarily ethnics, Muslins, Orientals, Hispanics, south asians , africans he targets all of them...people love to laugh at themselves if it's done in a non threatening way...

if you haven't seen his act check it out on youtube, funny stuff...

[M.Dancer]

Can't say it's looling good for Mrs. Jaffer....

Helena Guergis touted a green technology company to Simcoe County officials while her husband Rahim Jaffer and businessman Nazim Gillani were involved in a plan to take the firm public in a $1 billion deal.

Guergis wrote a letter last September to the top municipal politician of Simcoe County, Tony Guergis, suggesting he and council take a good look at a company called Wright Tech Systems. Tony is Helena's cousin and at the time was the senior municipal official in Simcoe. (Read a PDF of the full letter.)

Cabinet ministers and MPs are forbidden from using their position to influence a person or organization to benefit their interest or that of relatives or friends, according to the federal Conflict of Interest Act.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/796250--helena-guergis-touted-firm-linked-to-husband-rahim-jaffer

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Can't say it's looling good for Mrs. Jaffer....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/796250--helena-guergis-touted-firm-linked-to-husband-rahim-jaffer

If that is the charge, guilty is the only verdict.

[Born Free]

Says history... you know, that class others took while you were taking shop.

I passed that exam and was able to skip a few grades. So I took shop while waiting for you to catch up. Your three toughest years in H.S. were grade 10.

[Born Free]

Like most people with little education you have a very difficult time understanding the written word and like most ideologues you tend to put your own spin on what you do understand.

In short - I never said or pretended or even hinted any such thing.

Yes you did.

[jbg]

....if not their mistresses or boy lovers.

I think Scott Brison fit that category.

[scribblet]

Well, I hope that this investigation and a verdict comes quickly, even if Guergis is cleared her reputation and livelyhood are ruined. All this is based mainly on speculation and rumour, so far nothing factual.

It's too bad that the opposition continues to use this the further their own agenda rather than getting down to other business.

This is from a letter in today's NP which pretty well sums up the situation -

The liberals previous recommendation of returning decorum & reasonable debate back to the commons was just another "do as I say not as I do" gimmick.

They have clearly packaged themselves as petty partisan shrills, ready to misrepresent any topic that will assist their raison d'etre, which is to embarass the government at any cost.

Well, that cost is their party brand.

They are no longer a government in waiting. They claim no rights to any Canadian virtue or tradition.

They are the Pejorative Party of Canada. They are truly sycophants and venal gadflys. And after the think-fest, they have confirmed that they have nothing to offer this country.

[BubberMiley]

Well, I hope that this investigation and a verdict comes quickly, even if Guergis is cleared her reputation and livelyhood are ruined. All this is based mainly on speculation and rumour, so far nothing factual.

You think Harper would kick her out, thereby ruining her livelihood and reputation, based on speculation and rumour? Wow. Great leader you have there. Next time maybe they should get one with some balls.

[jbg]

You think Harper would kick her out, thereby ruining her livelihood and reputation, based on speculation and rumour? Wow. Great leader you have there. Next time maybe they should get one with some balls.

So Chretien showed "balls" when he prorogued Parliament, and resigned as party leader just as Sheila Frasier's report was about to come out? Showing balls was letting the mess explode all over Paul Martin?

Or did Svend Robinson show "balls" when he shoplifted jewelry? Now that's courage.

[Argus]

Yes you did.

Cite or shut up.

[Argus]

You think Harper would kick her out, thereby ruining her livelihood and reputation, based on speculation and rumour? Wow. Great leader you have there. Next time maybe they should get one with some balls.

Harper is the great pragmatist. Guergis was never more than a geographically convenient body, with pluses that she was female and reasonably attractive. With the hounds baying over one minor or even percieved "scandal" after another, be it her mortgage or letting hubby ride in her car, she had become an albatross and everyone knew it was only a matter of time before she was gone. The newest allegations, seized on gleefully by the opposition Paparazzi probably just caused him to throw up his hands and say "shoo".

[Topaz]

I wonder if Helena has realized, every Tories asked about this is defending Harper and not a word of defense at her. Rumours were they some of them were telling Harper to get rid of her and they have now and they don't want her back.

[Argus]

Some perspective on the Guergis "scandals".

For the first time, we find out that Guergis had been going through a difficult personal period prior to her famous PEI airport blowup. Two miscarriages in under a year; the minister was four months pregnant when she lost the second baby before the ill-fated trip to Charlottetown. “When one’s hormones are badly out of whack, life can be difficult,” notes a sympathetic editorial in a local newspaper.

Her mother had also recently suffered an anaphylactic attack. Guergis called 911 and her mother was rushed to the hospital, where she suffered a heart attack.

Just a bit of pressure, no? If Canadians had known this when the Liberals gleefully circulated the details of Guergis’ airport blow-up, would we have been as quick to condemn?

The Guergis Guide

[Born Free]

Cite or shut up.

Cite. Now you shut up!

[Argus]

Cite. Now you shut up!

Why don't you get back to us after you've gone through puberty.

[Born Free]

Why don't you get back to us after you've gone through puberty.

Sounds like something Harper would say when he is flummoxed.