Tory MP eats crow after ruffling judical feathers

[August1991]

Let's play the devil's advocate.

If the decision were reversed on the same type of agenda-driven decision, who would object?

I used this example solely because it was a well known example of a court reinterpreting the constitution to include rights not conferred before the court was asked to intervene. Perhaps this was not a good example from the standpoint that it regards an issue that people have strong feelings about and can cloud one's objectivity.

If the situation were reversed in the same manner it was made, who would object and on what grounds?

I'm not sure we can play that game.

Section 15 of the Charter states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Link (with discussion)

The Supreme Court has used the "... and, in particular..." to extend equality provisions to whatever group the Court feels deserves equal treatment. As I quoted above McLachlin sees this as a balancing act. She said the Court should not extend this equality too fast because otherwise it could upset society. But if it took a narrow interpretation, it could force the Court into a "cul-de-sac".

This implies that the Court is choosing to keep its options open to force in the future the government to treat any group no differently from any other group. (IMV, The Court is approaching this question as if it were common law but it is using a Civil Code device (the Charter) to do it.)

The Court is taking the position that the Charter was designed to extend equality rights. The simple devil's advocate position would be to consider a narrow interpretation of the equality provisions. That's what we've been debating in this thread, and in (far too) many threads about same-sex marriage.

To play your devil's advocate game more properly, you would have to imagine a situation in which an activist Court decided to force the government to treat, for example, one religious group favourably on the grounds that that would make the treatment equal to other religious groups. In a sense, an activist Court would get involved in the determination of what constitutes equal treatment. For example, imagine if the Court forced the government to make fundamentalist education available in all State schools on the grounds that religious believers were not equally treated to non-believers.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's play the devil's advocate.

If the decision were reversed on the same type of agenda-driven decision, who would object?

I used this example solely because it was a well known example of a court reinterpreting the constitution to include rights not conferred before the court was asked to intervene. Perhaps this was not a good example from the standpoint that it regards an issue that people have strong feelings about and can cloud one's objectivity.

If the situation were reversed in the same manner it was made, who would object and on what grounds?

I would because the process under which the decision is conceived is faulty. The first time they made the decision on that basis and in that way it was wrong and though I may agree more with the new outcome, it doesn't become the right thing to do.

My primary concern is that politicians will prefer to ramrod agendas that they know they'll never get through the house through the SCOC because in the SCOC they have someone they can paint in a bogeyman's robe, an entity that can't be held accountable by the people and they can stand there lily white in the midst of it all. I think the precedent is dangerous.

Well, I understand your position better than before and I can indeed see why too strong a court is dangerous. After many years of debate on this, I came to change my mind as far as the constitution itself is concerned. I think the lack of clarity is the cause of the problems here. Furthermore, I think it was worded that way intentionally because the architects could see that the same-sex rights debate was coming in ten or twenty years and they wanted to leave some room for it.

But neither branch - judicial or legislative - should be fully trusted, and we're probably better served when they're at odds with each other. This issue aside, I don't see how we can spell out what constitutes adding new rights vs. interpretation without giving one side or the other too much power.

[Hicksey]

Let's play the devil's advocate.

If the decision were reversed on the same type of agenda-driven decision, who would object?

I used this example solely because it was a well known example of a court reinterpreting the constitution to include rights not conferred before the court was asked to intervene. Perhaps this was not a good example from the standpoint that it regards an issue that people have strong feelings about and can cloud one's objectivity.

If the situation were reversed in the same manner it was made, who would object and on what grounds?

I would because the process under which the decision is conceived is faulty. The first time they made the decision on that basis and in that way it was wrong and though I may agree more with the new outcome, it doesn't become the right thing to do.

My primary concern is that politicians will prefer to ramrod agendas that they know they'll never get through the house through the SCOC because in the SCOC they have someone they can paint in a bogeyman's robe, an entity that can't be held accountable by the people and they can stand there lily white in the midst of it all. I think the precedent is dangerous.

Well, I understand your position better than before and I can indeed see why too strong a court is dangerous. After many years of debate on this, I came to change my mind as far as the constitution itself is concerned. I think the lack of clarity is the cause of the problems here. Furthermore, I think it was worded that way intentionally because the architects could see that the same-sex rights debate was coming in ten or twenty years and they wanted to leave some room for it.

But neither branch - judicial or legislative - should be fully trusted, and we're probably better served when they're at odds with each other. This issue aside, I don't see how we can spell out what constitutes adding new rights vs. interpretation without giving one side or the other too much power.

I am intensely distrustful of government by nature. When you hear me say that I would rather defer to parliament to decide such matters it doesn't mean I trust them at all. From where we stand we really cannot block any of these hypotheticals from happening. That's why I believe that if we cannot stop them from doing something bad for us, that if it is to happen, only people voters can directly hold responsible through the ballot box should be allowed to make those decisions.

I also understand the implications of my idea means that we'll find it even harder to find a politician that will stand on principle and make decisions. If we take away their bogeyman we're likely to revert to a govern by poll instance which is but a scintilla better than what we have now.

[scribblet]

Harper's reply to Lib. Mark Holland:

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist answering a question about the vast right wing conspiracy. What I will say is that I will speak to the Minister of National Defence and see if there is any possibility in the budget of a black helicopter, so we can fly the hon. member around to investigate his concerns.

[shoop]

That's some funny stuff. Harper is showing to have much more of a sense of humour than I thought.

Harper's reply to Lib. Mark Holland:

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist answering a question about the vast right wing conspiracy. What I will say is that I will speak to the Minister of National Defence and see if there is any possibility in the budget of a black helicopter, so we can fly the hon. member around to investigate his concerns.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus:

I was thinking of your inflammatory comments regarding Graham, and remembered that Frank published material indicating that Mike Harris physically abused his first wife in North Bay. That story didn't get picked up in the mainstream press either.

Is it okay for us to refer to Harris as a wife beater from now on then ?

I don't think Frank should be used as any kind of moral yardstick as to what we should post here. Politicians' private lives are immaterial, and if they broke the law then the police should handle it. Rumours should be left in the gutter. We're not Frank or Scoop magazine here.

[Nocrap]

Argus:

I was thinking of your inflammatory comments regarding Graham, and remembered that Frank published material indicating that Mike Harris physically abused his first wife in North Bay. That story didn't get picked up in the mainstream press either.

Is it okay for us to refer to Harris as a wife beater from now on then ?

I don't think Frank should be used as any kind of moral yardstick as to what we should post here. Politicians' private lives are immaterial, and if they broke the law then the police should handle it. Rumours should be left in the gutter. We're not Frank or Scoop magazine here.

Well said MH. Perhaps if we're going to believe rags like Frank magazine, we should also be quoting the National Enquirer. That would mean that Elvis is indeed alive and is riding around on a spaceship with Marilyn Munroe. Or my favourite headline "Man with two heads gets charged with bigamy". Maybe we need a law that states that any person with two heads cannot get married. Do you think for one minute that if the CPC really believed the rumours they wouldn't be using it to further discredit the Liberals? Even they know it's pure nonsense.

However, the thread was whether or not an MP should be trying to discredit the Supreme Court. His comments make you appreciate why Harper likes to keep his socks firmly entrenched in his Caucuses' mouths, but yet another reason why he shouldn't. Canadians don't need to know the sexual orientation of their elected officials but do have a right to know their views on our time honoured institutions.

They also have a right to know if the person in charge of an inquiry into Aboriginal Affairs is racist against the very people he is representing.

Those are the key issues and have nothing to do with who Bill Graham is sleeping with or even the political views of a Supreme Court Justice. That is not a matter for him to decide or disclose. He is only putting up walls where no walls should be.

[Argus]

Argus:

I was thinking of your inflammatory comments regarding Graham, and remembered that Frank published material indicating that Mike Harris physically abused his first wife in North Bay. That story didn't get picked up in the mainstream press either.

Is it okay for us to refer to Harris as a wife beater from now on then ?

I don't think Frank should be used as any kind of moral yardstick as to what we should post here. Politicians' private lives are immaterial, and if they broke the law then the police should handle it. Rumours should be left in the gutter. We're not Frank or Scoop magazine here.

Frank was actually quoting a gay magazine, two of them, actually, one of which wrote a very respectful story about Graham as a gay man, and the other of which quoted his alleged teen lover as saying Graham paid to put him up in an apartment for years.

I don't know whether to believe that Graham kept this prostitute as a 15 year old or not. I do, however, believe Graham is gay, and I believe there was at least some contact with this prostitute, whether before or after he turned 18. I think that is relevent information, especially given that his party was so self righteously advocating gay rights and demonizing everyone who disagreed. When you have a guy who is calling for greater rights for homosexuals but is hiding his own homosexuality from the public, well, that speaks a lot about his morality and honesty. When you have a married man cheating on his wife that speaks to his integrity too. And both speak to the integrity, or lack thereof, of the party they're leading.

And the stories about Harris allegedly abusing his first wive did indeed make it into the mainstream press, and were responded to by the party. No one in the Liberal party has mentioned the several magazine stories now about Graham and a male prostitute

[Argus]

However, the thread was whether or not an MP should be trying to discredit the Supreme Court. His comments make you appreciate why Harper likes to keep his socks firmly entrenched in his Caucuses' mouths, but yet another reason why he shouldn't. Canadians don't need to know the sexual orientation of their elected officials but do have a right to know their views on our time honoured institutions.

I think anyone who is a politician on the federal scene and is speaking out about gay rights while hiding his own homosexuality is dishonest and hypocritical. I want to know that. As for what was said about the chief justice - it was accurate, if flamboyantly put. Her own speech makes it clear she doesn't really care what the law or the constitution say, that she bases her decisions on "unwritten laws and principles".

They also have a right to know if the person in charge of an inquiry into Aboriginal Affairs is racist against the very people he is representing.

Do you have any evidence he's racist, or are you simply basing it on your apparent long-held belief that anyone who is conservative is a racist?

[Temagami Scourge]

Activist judges?

Are some of you people for real?

Activist Judges my beige butt. If there were truly activists judges in this country, then where are all the "completed" native land claims? Wouldn't Canada be awash in Native lands since the Crown has repeatedly violated agreement after agreement? Well, it's not, so your judges are certainly working for the side of "Canada".

Likewise, if there were activist judges, then why are both provincial and federal jails full of non-whites still? Native and Afro-Canadians are still far, far over represented in the system, but they aren't flooding the streets on early parole.

Additionally, why are we crying about activist judges when the crime rates are actually going down. To me, the problem is two-fold: the media reports matters a certain way to sell papers or ensure people watch their news show, and the current justice system is designed to work towards rehabilitation.

We don't see news reports about the dozens of people on early release who are straightening out their lives, using the education they acquired in jail to get into decent work, and start families...but the one guy or girl who fooled the system and recommits hits the headlines, and then the mindless start whining that the system is broken.

On this thread, the problem is that an elected MP is acting like a mindless sycophant to the idea that Supreme Court judges are Gods, and yet there is no compelling proof from any SCC judge that they subscribe to that notion, nor is there evidence that demonstrates that they are playing favorites except when it comes to native land claims, and clearly, the majority non-natives are favorites. Lastly, if successive governments (and this is aimed at both liberals and conservatives) didn't abrogate their duty and bothered to make the law instead of sending it up to the SCC all the time, then why are we complaining about the judiciary when it is the Executive that is failing Canada.

[shoop]

We're not held to a journalistic standard here.

We are posting on an anonymous message board, with *rules* that are very sporadically and unevenly applied. News publications really should be held to a higher standard. Frank is a rumour sheet. Admittedly they don't verify tips. So be it.

Why would you bother to bring this part of it up days later? Seems like some sort of agenda is driving your actions.

If you wanted to post the Mike Harris rumours, so be it. And you did. Claim you used it as an *example* all you want. Regardless, you slandered some one who has been out of public life for years, who just happens to be from the right side of the political spectrum. You could have proven your point without actually using his name.

Does that somehow make you feel better that Graham's dirty little secret was brought up, again?

Is there such a dearth of information on current conservative politicians that you had to reach back into the Mike Harris era?

Argus:

I was thinking of your inflammatory comments regarding Graham, and remembered that Frank published material indicating that Mike Harris physically abused his first wife in North Bay. That story didn't get picked up in the mainstream press either.

Is it okay for us to refer to Harris as a wife beater from now on then ?

I don't think Frank should be used as any kind of moral yardstick as to what we should post here. Politicians' private lives are immaterial, and if they broke the law then the police should handle it. Rumours should be left in the gutter. We're not Frank or Scoop magazine here.

[Michael Hardner]

We're not held to a journalistic standard here.

We are posting on an anonymous message board, with *rules* that are very sporadically and unevenly applied. News publications really should be held to a higher standard. Frank is a rumour sheet. Admittedly they don't verify tips. So be it.

Why would you bother to bring this part of it up days later? Seems like some sort of agenda is driving your actions.

I think the word 'agenda' is silly. Everybody has an agenda in every single action they do, don't they ? What's the difference between agenda and motivation ?

My agenda is to make the board better by holding my colleagues here to a high standard in terms of what they post. Posting on the personal lives of politicians isn't material, in my opinion. I know Argus thinks that somebody cheating on their wife should be exposed as a hypocrite, but I don't agree.

If you wanted to post the Mike Harris rumours, so be it. And you did. Claim you used it as an *example* all you want. Regardless, you slandered some one who has been out of public life for years, who just happens to be from the right side of the political spectrum. You could have proven your point without actually using his name.

Does that somehow make you feel better that Graham's dirty little secret was brought up, again?

Is there such a dearth of information on current conservative politicians that you had to reach back into the Mike Harris era?

Point taken. That didn't occur to me. I shouldn't have used his name there - I apologize.

No, it doesn't make me feel better. I would feel better if nobody posted on peoples' personal lives.

And - yes - there is a dearth of information on current conservative politicians, maybe because I don't read Frank any more.

[Argus]

No, it doesn't make me feel better. I would feel better if nobody posted on peoples' personal lives.

I totally understand that attitude. It's a good attitude to have. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it's not an attitude I can accept.

What do we know of the people we elect? Nothing. Every word they say, the expression on their face when they say it, the tone of voice, the way they tilt their head, their haircut, their suit, EVERYTHING is guided by spin-doctors and media analysts. Their positions and opinions are decided by polls and focus groups, by positional analyses of seperate blocks of voters.

What do we know about them? Nothing.

So when something gives us a glimpse into their private lives, it gives us a glimpse behind the mask, to just what kind of people they are. The mere fact that Graham cheats on his wife is information enough for me - sans mitigation, to say he's a scumbag and want him gone. I also have little time for those who make use of the services of prostitutes. I consider that to speak to the guy's self-discipline, recklessness and - and hey, let's thrown in dignity, shall we?

I also believe that if you're going to be speaking out on a policy which affects you personally the voters have a right to know that you're speaking as someone personally affected. Scott Brison can speak out on gay rights and everyone knows where he's coming from. The same can be said for someone like Velacott. Graham hasn't got the balls to identify where he's coming from, and that speaks poorly to his integrity.

So as you can see, peeking behind the curtain gives us insights which are valuable as citizens in deciding where to place our votes. And tose insights, given how tightly scripted and controlled politicians are in their professional life, can be quite important.

[shoop]

Do you really think that is true in Canada?

Where does the money come from for all these spin doctors and media analysts?

Regular MPs definitely don't have the money for that. Besides there is enough crazy stuff said by MPs from all parties to prove to the contrary.

Sure you see *some* of that stuff at the top levels, but it is not all politicians by any stretch of the imagination.

What do we know of the people we elect? Nothing. Every word they say, the expression on their face when they say it, the tone of voice, the way they tilt their head, their haircut, their suit, EVERYTHING is guided by spin-doctors and media analysts. Their positions and opinions are decided by polls and focus groups, by positional analyses of seperate blocks of voters.

So as you can see, peeking behind the curtain gives us insights which are valuable as citizens in deciding where to place our votes. And tose insights, given how tightly scripted and controlled politicians are in their professional life, can be quite important.

[Argus]

Do you really think that is true in Canada?

Yes.

Maybe lower ranking politicos don't have their own spin doctors, but those in parties are given lessons and instructions, and the big guys are all under close control. Dalton McGuinty is probably the best example in Canada, at least that I've seen. Everything about him is controlled by the spin-doctors, from his suits, to his hair to his voice and facial expressions. If you can ever get a look at him from a few years back you'd hardly recognize the guy.

Any time we see anyone on TV, any MP or MPP or even city counsellor, we have to know that he's been rehearsed and prepared by his or her staff and advisers in advance, and has practiced what to say and what not to say, as well as how to dodge uncomfortable questions. Chretien and Martin were famous for rote answers and dodging questions. Whenever someone asked something they hadn't practiced they'd turnd and stare at their political advisor, as it to say "What answer should I give?". Chretien, in particular, was famous for making ridiculous gaffes ever time he departed from the tight scripting. Without the spin doctors and political advisors (and a kind and generous press) he would have come off as a bumpkin and fool.

I think my disaffecton wth the Reform Party, in fact, began when they hired a stable of their own spin doctors and media advisors. That would be about the time Preston Manning changed his haircuts, bought snazzier suits, and started sounding less like a smart, honest, grassroots ordinary guy and more like a political weasel.

[shoop]

No. It doesn't work that way.

Anybody who honestly thinks these guys have the time, or inclination, to prep before any TV experience truly has no idea about the system.

Argus, how many staffers, between the Hill office and the Constituency office do you think the average MP has?

Any time we see anyone on TV, any MP or MPP or even city counsellor, we have to know that he's been rehearsed and prepared by his or her staff and advisers in advance, and has practiced what to say and what not to say, as well as how to dodge uncomfortable questions. Chretien and Martin were famous for rote answers and dodging questions. Whenever someone asked something they hadn't practiced they'd turnd and stare at their political advisor, as it to say "What answer should I give?". Chretien, in particular, was famous for making ridiculous gaffes ever time he departed from the tight scripting. Without the spin doctors and political advisors (and a kind and generous press) he would have come off as a bumpkin and fool.

I think my disaffecton wth the Reform Party, in fact, began when they hired a stable of their own spin doctors and media advisors. That would be about the time Preston Manning changed his haircuts, bought snazzier suits, and started sounding less like a smart, honest, grassroots ordinary guy and more like a political weasel.

[Argus]

No. It doesn't work that way.

Anybody who honestly thinks these guys have the time, or inclination, to prep before any TV experience truly has no idea about the system.

Argus, how many staffers, between the Hill office and the Constituency office do you think the average MP has?

As I said, they have access to party people. As to how many staff; they used to have three administrative assistants on the Hill - secretaries, basically. Virtually all have now traded in two of the three for a speech-writer cum image consultant. That's why when you call your MP you're likely to get an answering machine, sometimes an answering machine which is too full to even take a message. They only have the one admin person now, the funds for the other two going to their speechwriter/image consultant.

[shoop]

Really? So what exactly do this speechwriter/image consultants do day-to-day?

As I said, they have access to party people. As to how many staff; they used to have three administrative assistants on the Hill - secretaries, basically. Virtually all have now traded in two of the three for a speech-writer cum image consultant. That's why when you call your MP you're likely to get an answering machine, sometimes an answering machine which is too full to even take a message. They only have the one admin person now, the funds for the other two going to their speechwriter/image consultant.

[Argus]

Really? So what exactly do this speechwriter/image consultants do day-to-day?

As I said, they have access to party people. As to how many staff; they used to have three administrative assistants on the Hill - secretaries, basically. Virtually all have now traded in two of the three for a speech-writer cum image consultant. That's why when you call your MP you're likely to get an answering machine, sometimes an answering machine which is too full to even take a message. They only have the one admin person now, the funds for the other two going to their speechwriter/image consultant.

Is that important to the discussion at hand?

[Hicksey]

Activist judges?

Are some of you people for real?

Activist Judges my beige butt. If there were truly activists judges in this country, then where are all the "completed" native land claims? Wouldn't Canada be awash in Native lands since the Crown has repeatedly violated agreement after agreement? Well, it's not, so your judges are certainly working for the side of "Canada".

Likewise, if there were activist judges, then why are both provincial and federal jails full of non-whites still? Native and Afro-Canadians are still far, far over represented in the system, but they aren't flooding the streets on early parole.

Additionally, why are we crying about activist judges when the crime rates are actually going down. To me, the problem is two-fold: the media reports matters a certain way to sell papers or ensure people watch their news show, and the current justice system is designed to work towards rehabilitation.

We don't see news reports about the dozens of people on early release who are straightening out their lives, using the education they acquired in jail to get into decent work, and start families...but the one guy or girl who fooled the system and recommits hits the headlines, and then the mindless start whining that the system is broken.

On this thread, the problem is that an elected MP is acting like a mindless sycophant to the idea that Supreme Court judges are Gods, and yet there is no compelling proof from any SCC judge that they subscribe to that notion, nor is there evidence that demonstrates that they are playing favorites except when it comes to native land claims, and clearly, the majority non-natives are favorites. Lastly, if successive governments (and this is aimed at both liberals and conservatives) didn't abrogate their duty and bothered to make the law instead of sending it up to the SCC all the time, then why are we complaining about the judiciary when it is the Executive that is failing Canada.

We said activist, not stupid. Let's not forget these people have law degrees and are not that stupid -- even if they defer to personal opinion ahead of the law when it suits them.

[shoop]

Really? So what exactly do this speechwriter/image consultants do day-to-day?

Is that important to the discussion at hand?

Uhhh, yeah it kinda is. We started out with you saying the following.

Every word they say, the expression on their face when they say it, the tone of voice, the way they tilt their head, their haircut, their suit, EVERYTHING is guided by spin-doctors and media analysts.

I am just trying to figure out if you actually know what you are talking about or are just pulling terms like *spin-doctor*, *media analyst*, *speechwriter* or *image consultant* outta your butt.

But your attempt at deflecting the question tomorrow tells me that you don't.

It goes to establishing credibility.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm still not convinced a politician's personal life has anything to do with his/her job, or that I have any right to know about it.

We're not voting for them because they're great people, or people we would choose as friends but because we want them to form our government. Yes, they should be held to somewhat of a higher standard with regards to behavior because they're in positions of higher responsibility but they still have the right to private lives, and the right to make all the same mistakes that the rest of us make.

I don't ask my mechanic if he fools around on his wife, so why should I care if my MP does ?

The quick answer is that we expect our MPs to be honest. But how honest ? Politics is all about skating around the truth, and if we held the truth standard to the ideal level, truly there would be no politicans left.

[scribblet]

Good article by M. Coren on this, worth a read.

Judges rule supreme

By MICHAEL COREN

In case you wonder why Stephen Harper limits media access to his government, witness this week's attempt to skewer Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott.

The highly respected politician dared to tell the CBC that, "I don't think it is the role of the judge, whether left or right or conservative or whatever stripe, to actually figure to play the position of God."

Then, speaking specifically of Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, he said that "she herself said actually when they step into this role that suddenly there's some kind of mystical power that comes over them, with everything that they've ever decreed not to be questioned.

"They actually have the discernment and almost prophetic ability to plumb and know the mind of the public."

This obviously touched a nerve. Vellacott has been obliged to resign from the chair of Parliament's aboriginal affairs committee and Chief Justice McLachlin's representative has officially denied that the judge ever said such things. The CBC in particular has magnified the comments to an extraordinary degree.

Let us be entirely candid here. Velacott is one of the most morally conservative and outspoken MPs in Canada. He is a former pastor, a powerful critic of gay marriage and abortion, and has been subject to some of the most extraordinary vitriol and even libellous attacks in his political career.

Yet while his language was certainly flowery, it may not have been very far from the truth. Consider this quotation:

"The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion. I believe that judges have the duty to insist that legislative and executive branches of government confirm to certain established and fundamental norms, even in times of trouble."

The author? Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. And the implication is clear. Judges have the right and the duty to make decisions that may be contrary to the laws of the land.

Problem is, if public opinion, the law and the elected House of Commons are not to decide what these norms are, it obviously and clearly leaves that privilege to the Supreme Court. Giving judges on that court a status that is, yes, almost God-like.

-snip-

Hold tight, Maurice. The truth always wins in the end, even in Canada.

*************************

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...13/1577562.html

[shoop]

Because we aren't giving mechanics the power to control a budget worth close to half a Trillion dollars a year or the power to change laws that govern the way we live our lives.

I'm still not convinced a politician's personal life has anything to do with his/her job, or that I have any right to know about it.

We're not voting for them because they're great people, or people we would choose as friends but because we want them to form our government. Yes, they should be held to somewhat of a higher standard with regards to behavior because they're in positions of higher responsibility but they still have the right to private lives, and the right to make all the same mistakes that the rest of us make.

I don't ask my mechanic if he fools around on his wife, so why should I care if my MP does ?

The quick answer is that we expect our MPs to be honest. But how honest ? Politics is all about skating around the truth, and if we held the truth standard to the ideal level, truly there would be no politicans left.

[Argus]

Really? So what exactly do this speechwriter/image consultants do day-to-day?

Is that important to the discussion at hand?

Uhhh, yeah it kinda is. We started out with you saying the following.

Every word they say, the expression on their face when they say it, the tone of voice, the way they tilt their head, their haircut, their suit, EVERYTHING is guided by spin-doctors and media analysts.

I am just trying to figure out if you actually know what you are talking about or are just pulling terms like *spin-doctor*, *media analyst*, *speechwriter* or *image consultant* outta your butt.

But your attempt at deflecting the question tomorrow tells me that you don't.

It goes to establishing credibility.

Oh is that it? I just wondered why you wanted me to repeat something which had already been stated a post or two back. I apologise for continually forgetting to make allowances for people who are incapable of understanding basic English, or who really aren't much interested in discussing things so much as making snide comments to make themselves feel important.