Initially I thought this scandal was going to be some minor blip on the radar screen. I am now having second thoughts about that.
Jaffer more a priority than pariah within government
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100428/national/gillani_guergis_jaffer_7
I'm convinced Harper is going down in the next election. When I say down I mean he will win fewer seats and will not end up being the pm.
Harper's motherhood issue backfires, triggers secret-agenda fears on abortion
A seemingly enlightened decision by Stephen Harper to have coming G8 meetings in Ontario focus on global maternal health has backfired on his government.
Instead of reaping the political benefits of promoting a mainstream, moderate policy issue, the government -- by taking a stand against support for foreign aid programs that would fund abortions -- has reinforced fears about its so-called secret right-wing agenda.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+motherhood+issue+backfires+trigg...
It's up to Canadians to decide whether or not they want a Liberal-NDP coalition.
Polls appear to show that many Canadians are against the idea because it is viewed as overturning the results of an election. The party that wins the most seats in Canada is considered the party that has the greatest right to govern.
You can expect Stephen Harper to campaign against the coalition in the next election.
This is one of the most damaging ideas used to attack what is left of democracy in this country. Just because the Conservatives were able to foist the garbled interpretation of how parliamentary democracy works on the gullible and then execute a bloodless coup by manipulating the vestiges of monarchal authority inherent in the office of the Governor General to undermine the will of the parliament, does not mean that it was legal or moral, or that it had anything to do with "democracy" in any way shape or form.
Stephen Harper was not elected to be Prime Minister. He was elected to be a member of parliament. No more. No less.
Harper is making too many mistakes to be re-elected.
Galloway wasn't allowed in, but confessed spy who supported terrorism was
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/galloway-wasnt-allowed-in-b...
Duh!
Brace yourself for years of minorities
It doesn't help Stephen Harper's Conservatives that as soon as it looks like they are getting some forward momentum, they go and shoot themselves in the foot, the latest gaffe being Helena Guergis' poor choice of words and her husband, former Tory MP Rahim Jaffer's questionable lobbying tactics. The party that campaigned on accountability and integrity seems to take two steps backward for every forward move they make, which results in stagnant poll numbers such as we've seen over the past two years.
The Harris-Decima poll found most Canadians have little confidence in their federal political leaders, a symptom, Gregg says, "of general, if not disgust, certainly massive dissatisfaction with traditional choices."
Can anyone say "Prime Minister Jack Layton" without choking?
http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2554059
This does not look good for Harper.
Jaffer 'lied his ass off': NDP
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/28/13751346-qmi.html
People know that Rahim Jaffer has no credibility - even his Conservative colleagues were frank in calling him out at the Committee last week.
The point is that his actions do not reflect the Government as a whole, and most Canadians realize that.
Yeah, yeah, keep dreaming on that one, Augustus.
This does not look good for Harper.
Jaffer 'lied his ass off': NDP
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/28/13751346-qmi.html
People know that Rahim Jaffer has no credibility - even his Conservative colleagues were frank in calling him out at the Committee last week.
The point is that his actions do not reflect the Government as a whole, and most Canadians realize that.
I agree. Here we have two non-white Canadians trying to get in on the scam. What were they thinking?
Hard to tell how much systemic racism is involved here, but surely some. It is always hard to quantify. After all, would Jaffer have been flagged by the police in the first place, were he not a brown man in a nice car? Who was this private eye, and who sent him in the first place? The privileged are hardly ever so exposed, and their dealings can go on in the background and on the QT, while these guys had to brazenly knock on doors to make headway. Reading these email exchanges surely tells us that these guys were not unwelcome, but will anyone else take the fall?
The way these guys were so quickly cut loose and then upbraided in righteous tones like school boys by their former friends, looks a lot like white Tories who "reflect" the true nature of the "government as a whole" closing ranks on the "new" guys, protecting old money and vested interests that never need to knock before entering.
And to boot, former friends that as little as a few months ago, were asking the civil servants about movement on the projects Jaffer was pushing.
Funny that "not reflecting on the government" when just yesterday there emerge more than one incidence of Ministers doing more than just listening to Jaffer... and Jaffer tapping channels others who had been in the field for a long time did not even know existed [like Prentice's parliamentary secretary who was the little known gatekeeper for infrastucture funding sources].
One of the stories along those lines:
Sponsorship scheme haunts lobbying scandal
The timing couldn't be worse for Stephen Harper. With another election fast approaching and Fraser already poking into how the economic stimulus is being spent, the last thing the Prime Minister needs is suspicion that the contract sluiceway is under partisan control. It's not clear that Fraser's audit will look specifically at how contracts are being awarded.
Both the audit's scope and the timing of the report, expected in late October, are shrouded in Parliament's privilege to get the information first.
What is known is that Fraser is particularly skilled at connecting dots. Gillani and Jaffer are making them unusually easy to follow.
Apart from the damming contract with Gillani, the most intriguing and damaging revelation so far is Jaffer's homing pigeon approach to Brian Jeans, an Alberta MP and Parliamentary Secretary to Transport Minister John Baird. Jean's designated role in screening proposals for the $1-billion Green Energy Fund was unknown until the scandal drew unwanted attention to a system that adroitly skirts lobbying restrictions and has the added effect of alerting bureaucrats to political support for proposals. There's no evidence of any money wrongly changing hands.
Still, critics say the structure flunks the sniff test and speculate that something similar may extend to the much larger Economic Action Plan, also under Baird's stewardship. Pat Martin, the outspoken NDP public accounts critic, compares what's now known about the system to a secret handshake or password that's only shared among select Conservatives.
Speculation is a long day's march from proof. Even so, the odour is so pungent that it helps explain why Conservatives, both in the Commons and in these hearings, are reminding Liberals of their sponsorship sins and why the Prime Minister so dramatically distanced his party from the fallen power couple.
Allegations already abound that the ruling party advanced its interests while countering recession with more than $50 billion in public spending over two years. Conservatives stand accused of directing more than a fair share to friendly ridings, promoting the party with a lavish advertising campaign and pushing Louis Ranger, the highly regarded deputy minister of transport, into retirement for failing to shovel taxpayer's loonies out the door fast enough.
Four years in power have exposed Conservatives as even more secretive and controlling than Liberals but not as grasping. The danger now is that Gillani, Jaffer and Guergis are putting that reputation at risk.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/801933--travers-sponsorship-s...
People know that Rahim Jaffer has no credibility - even his Conservative colleagues were frank in calling him out at the Committee last week.
The point is that his actions do not reflect the Government as a whole, and most Canadians realize that.
That is hilarious. This man's right hand person in his riding was found to have been impersonating people and then later Jaffer became caucus chair. Your party doesn't like cronies that get caught but everyone who is watching can see that he was a slime before and it didn't matter. I think it partly didn't matter because your party needs token MP's from various communities but those tokens are the most easily discarded.
"After all, would Jaffer have been flagged by the police in the first place, were he not a brown man in a nice car?"
Yes. He was "flagged" by the police because he drove through a small town at something like 140 miles an hour wayyyyy above the speed limit. He went by so fast that no one could have seen what colour he was!
You don't know Orangville like I know Orangville, Stockhom. Be that as it may speeding tickets don't usually end in a search of the vehicle. Did you ever wonder why the related charges of possession of cocaine and so on were dropped? Dollars to donuts because the search was deemed illegal, and the evidence therefore inadmissable.
They stopped him for speeding and apparantly his breath reeked of alcohol so they wanted him to do a breathalizer test as well and so on. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I still want to know who Rahim and Helena buy their cocaine from and why there have been no arrests of their dealers?
And sometimes systemic racism is just systemic racism. See, Stockholm, you just don't understand the principle of what systemic prejudice is all about. It rarely rears its head in easily identifiable form, of belligerent cops outspokenly calling people pejorative names. It doesn't work that way.
Review this for content:
Hard to tell how much systemic racism is involved here, but surely some. It is always hard to quantify.
The other possibility is that someone who is stopped and has a CPIC search conducted on his licence plate, and who is already a person of interest, might wind up being subject to further inquiries and searches.
It does seem from the CBC's story the other week that the decision to strip search him, and prevent him from consulting his preferred lawyer who finally returned the call, is what got those charges dropped. I suppose the question might be asked whether that could have resulted from systemic discrimination, but it could also have resulted from not wanting to appear to be favouring a VIP.
We don't have enough information to second-guess it all (well, I don't anyway).
There may be systemic racism - but that doesn't mean that it necessarily had anything to do with Rahim Jaffer being arrested. Just because there is such a thing as syetemic racism doesn't mean that every single solitary time that a visible minority group member gets arrested - it played any role. In the case of Jaffer, I see no evidence it played any role at all - they was driving about 80 miles above the speed limit in a residential area and had whiskey on his breath - it would be a scandal had he NOT been arrested in circumstances like that.
No. No. There is systemic racism. And it is everywhere. And effects all social relations.
So it must have been systemic racism that caused Jaffer to lose to Linda Duncan in the last election? or was it that systemic racism was more powerful than systemic sexism? or are you saying that if you lived in Edmonton-Strathcona - you would HAVE to vote for Tory Rahim jaffer in order to make a statement against "systemic racism"??
This is absurd - its one thing to say that there is such a thing as systemic racism - its another to say that it plays a role in every single solitary case - bar none.
Men tend to get arrested much more often than women - does that mean that every sinhgle solitary time a man gets in trouble with the police "systemic sexism" against men ipso-facto played a role - of course not.
This race card stuff is total garbage.There is systemic racism,but it's not at play here.Jaffer was caught speeding and drunk.Everything else goes from there.His skin colour is not an issue.
And if there was this secret cabal of bigots out to get Jaffer,why did the old Reform/CA use Jaffer as their poster boy for inclusiveness?I realize they had to because he was probably close to the only person of colour in that party that could used for those purposes,but still,the "bigoted cops out to bust the brown skin guy" defense is a little lame.It's becoming more evident that he actually may have had the influence inside the CPC that many claim he does'nt.I assume that influence probably would extend to cops in the area that would know who he is and possibly give him a pass.In fact,if he was the victim of some sort of systemic bigotry,I wonder why that would'nt have been one of his first claims after being arrested.
It simply does'nt fly.....
Welder he is from Edmonton and his wife is from were he got arrested. I would very much doubt if many cops had a clue who this man was.
Welder he is from Edmonton and his wife is from were he got arrested. I would very much doubt if many cops had a clue who this man was.
I don't believe that at all...I'll bet that being the husband of a sitting cabinet minister,Mr.Jaffer is very well known and recognizable,in and around that community.
Do I think there are bigoted cops?
Yes...
Do I think that was the underlying reason for Mr.Jaffer's arrest?
Nope...He was caught speeding while drunk,and that has opened up everything else...
And I think bringing it up allows a true self-important sleazy character like Jaffer the cover of false victimhood he does'nt deserve.
So it must have been systemic racism that caused Jaffer to lose to Linda Duncan in the last election? or was it that systemic racism was more powerful than systemic sexism? or are you saying that if you lived in Edmonton-Strathcona - you would HAVE to vote for Tory Rahim jaffer in order to make a statement against "systemic racism"??
This is absurd - its one thing to say that there is such a thing as systemic racism - its another to say that it plays a role in every single solitary case - bar none.
Men tend to get arrested much more often than women - does that mean that every sinhgle solitary time a man gets in trouble with the police "systemic sexism" against men ipso-facto played a role - of course not.
Again, you simply don't understand the principles of systemic racism. That is all. The fact is that there is systemic racism in Canadian society. At what level it operates in any individual cases is hard to determine, but, racism is operative in all social relations because Canada is a racist society. At what point, and precisely how it enters into the Jaffer case is hard to determine, but we know it is operative, since we Canada is a racist society.
Indeed, the chances that systemic racism can be avoided is infinitesimally small.
How we arrive at this point precisely, is hard to say, but the end result is we have a South Asian guy and a black guy, getting scroned by an all white parliamentary committee. These results are predictable, as is the silence of Jaffer's colleagues. Even at the height of the Mulroney scandals there were "upstanding" Tories willing to come to his defense. Sure, Harper excommunicated Mulroney, but Mulroney did not go down without a fight within his party, and plenty of people stepped forward to defend him.
However, in the Jaffer case, he has been cut loose, almost instantly by his so called friends.
To me, it looks like they were just enough on the "outside" to have to bang on a lot of doors to get "inside" and this positioning, in and of itself meant that they were vulnerable to exposure.
No explanation though, why the cocaine charge was dropped? You have one of two options there, dirty cops conducting an illegal search, or a dirty crown who have been influenced politically.
Any reason you prefer one over the other?
How we arrive at this point precisely, is hard to say, but the end result is we have a South Asian guy and a black guy, getting scroned by an all white parliamentary committee. These results are predictable, as is the silence of Jaffer's colleagues. Even at the height of the Mulroney scandals there were "upstanding" Tories willing to come to his defense. Sure, Harper excommunicated Mulroney, but Mulroney did not go down without a fight within his party, and plenty of people stepped forward to defend him.
That is incorrect.
Yasmin Ratansi, the Chair of the Committee, is a minority.
Thanks for the correction. The only people I have seen quoted in the press are otherwise. Probably the chair only speaks to procedure.
The Arab guy who was at Committee after the black guy and the South Asian guy didn't think they had been discriminated against.
I do agree that there was an early undertone in some of the Conservative spinning that was trying to throw Jaffer under the bus, and blame him for Guergis' troubles. After a certain point though, I think they started to hold both in equal contempt, which is kind of understandable when you think about the potential damage that's been done.
To me, it looks like they were just enough on the "outside" to have to bang on a lot of doors to get "inside" and this positioning, in and of itself meant that they were vulnerable to exposure. Likewise, it makes them a little easier to cut out.
I guess there is also the possibility that those who caught him did not like politicians.... I can see someone wanting to see a politician recieve that treatment once in a while-- especially one from a hypocritical "law and order" party.
That said, without knowing those who arrested him, I would not discount or rule out racism-- unfortunately we can never rule that out but we also cannot rule it in either as there are other possibilities-- even that he was obnoxious to the officer and the officer went overboard for that reason. We may never know.
Was Helena Guergis ejected from the Conservative caucus because of racism?
Who are you asking?
I'm asking the people on this thread who are claiming Rahim Jaffer is a victim of racism.
The point is that the reason Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis are being treated harshly has nothing to do with racial discrimination.
It is because neither one of them has shown remorse or taken responsibility for the consequences of their actions. They have brought the reputation of MP's into disrepute, and that is why people are angry with them.
Was Helena Guergis ejected from the Conservative caucus because of racism?
No. That is because most of the women who would degrade themselves to the point of running for a party that is overtly antagonistic to their interest, as women, are pretty damned foolish to start with, as can be seen by the trail of female cabinet blow-outs in recent years. Gurgis herself was in trouble with a series of bizarre episodes of her own to account for, and choosing Jaffer as partner appears to be just another foolish episode.
I'm asking the people on this thread who are claiming Rahim Jaffer is a victim of racism.
The point is that the reason Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis are being treated harshly has nothing to do with racial discrimination.
It is because neither one of them has shown remorse or taken responsibility for the consequences of their actions. They have brought the reputation of MP's into disrepute, and that is why people are angry with them.
Let's get a couple of things straight. I didn't say "racism". I said "systemic racism". It's important to understand the distinction. I didn't suggest that anyone was going after him because he is non-white. I am saying that being non-white, may have put him in a position where he had to do things that made him vulnerable in order to get access to the Tory Green Trough. I also mentioned a few other oddities in this case, like the amazing disappearing cocaine charge, that raises questions, such as those I outlined above.
The idea that there is something strange or unusual about former MP's and cabinet ministers managing to get access to public funds for business projects is hardly earth shattering. Plenty of this patronage goes on politics, regardless of which pack of self-serving schmos are elected. Jaffer's chief crime, if there is one, seems to have been lobbying without a license, and after all is said and done it hard not to wonder if part of Jaffer's problem may have been that he was on the outside looking in, and consequently left a lot of incriminating fingerprints on the door knobs that lead to the cash box.
Also, I'm not clear that people in this thread were absolutely saying that Rahim Jaffer was a victim of racism. I do think they are legitimately asking if it's possible that systemic racism played any role in the unfolding of the story thus far.
Why didn't he just register as a lobbyist?
That is an interesting question.
Why didn't he just register as a lobbyist?
Yes that is of some interest. What I don't understand and find far more interesting is how someone with all these character flaws could become the Caucus Chair. Its not like he suddenly changed. His record was one of deceit even before this.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Okay, folks. What'll it take to move the NDP from its current 20% in the polls to 25% in the next election?
Let me know when they get to 20%, then we can talk.
Why didn't he just register as a lobbyist?
He's a cheapskate?
The Lobbying Act will also prohibit any contingency fee arrangements by lobbyists, impose a five-year lobbying ban on designated public office holders, (21) and impose greater disclosure requirements on lobbyists, particularly in relation to dealings with designated public office holders. The law will also contain new offence provisions, greater monetary fines for convictions and longer limitation periods for instituting summary conviction proceedings under the Act. The Commissioner of Lobbying will have the power to prohibit anyone who has been convicted of an offence under the Act from lobbying for a period of up to two years, and he or she will be able to make publicly available any information related to a person convicted of an offence under the Act.
Why didn't he just register as a lobbyist?
He's a self absorbed putz with delusions of grandeur?
He didn't register because he was told that if he was a registered lobbyist, his wife would have to step down from her cabinet post.
He didn't register because he was told that if he was a registered lobbyist, his wife would have to step down from her cabinet post.
I think this may be correct.
I don't think it's been officially confirmed by Stephen Harper, but he supposedly told this to Rahim Jaffer, yes.
I guess it shows the perils of having two politicians married to each other and how what one does can affect the other. They are both going down together.
Technically, she only married him after he lost. However, they are enough examples of politicians who are married to one another and have handled it well. Jack Layton and Olivia Chow for one. Howie Hampton and Shelley Martel for another. I would even add Jim Flaherty and Christine Elliott to the list.
I got it!! I smoked a joint and it came to me - GET THE LIBERALS AND THE CONSERVATIVES TO FORM ONE PARTY.They are more alike than either of them want to admit. They are the ruling parties, the two are have allways been the one.
The NDP and Greens and the uncommitted enlightened would be the opposition.
This would also end the deadlock of endless minority governments, which puts the nation on edge and we lose confidence in our direction because we are afraid of giving Libs or Cons a majority.
I know, this will sound silly in the morning...
Judging by the Liberal voting record in the House of Commons over the past few years, wouldn't you think they were already united with the Conservatives?
There are other threads dealing with Geurgis and Jaffer, so let's deal with the thread topic here, shall we?
For the N.D.P. to gain support, they'll need to concentrate on three areas:
1. Performance
2. Policy
3. Candidates
The performance of Jack and the NDP caucus in the H.O.C. has been terrific. Iggy looks like a teacher who doesn't know how to communicate with his students when I see him during Question Period, or scrums outside afterwards. He's like one of those educators who talks 'at' people and not 'to' them.
I was at the Halifax Convention last August, and the resolutions that were debated were serious and meaningful towards making Canada a better place to live.
Now it comes down to having the team of candidates that will take the message to the doorsteps. According to Pundit's Guide, there are 113 NDP candidates nominated so far for 308 ridings, including 40 female candidates (35.4%), the highest percentage amongst the 4 major parties. They'll need to have at least 250 nominated by the end of this year to be ready for next spring, when I believe the next election will come.
Then watch the NDP poll numbers rise!
..i have 2 questions.
..be it federal or provincial should the ndp gain power they face the same pressures from the usual suspects. there's the imf, the world bank, apec, the military, g8, chambers of commerce, plus many more external and internal groupings that support the capitalist model of corporate and market domination. above all they face usa.
..for any party that chooses to run against that grain this is enormous pressure. no matter how strong a party may be, one policy after another will fall or be rendered harmless under continuous and brutal attacks. on the other side there is the ndp membership, the clc and labour fed leadership.
..my question how can we send these people to parliament without a proper defence then expect progressive legislation? should we not be making plans to defend progressive policy on the streets?
Cameron in the UK is ready to move on Day One should he get a majority which he probably won't. He has a list of things which was published this week that he would do immediately if elected with a majority. The NDP needs to have the same kind of list that is publicly available. Voters want to know that you have a plan.
It sure is good to see 3 separate pollsters now showing the NDP with 20% in the polls. I think we can discount the right-wing Ipsos polling, and the EKOS Liberal polling. I'd be curious though to hear what Nanos Research has to say.
The Liberals and Cons are not going to join as one party when they have this great good cop bad cop scam going.
