Reform poster-boy Rahim Jaffer walks

[FiveParadox]

Where do you see that?

I’m referring to lone wolf’s attempts to keep up, at all costs, his reverence for Rahim Jaffer as an outstanding citizen. (“It’s just a little coke, it doesn’t mean he’s an addict! He was probably just holding it for his friend! Big, mean police officer!”)

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Haha, are we going to have the Conservatives now defending Jaffer’s drug habits? That’s cute.

Whether or not there was interference at a leadership-level, the fact remains that Mr. Rahim Jaffer used the offices of The Honourable Helena Guergis P.C., M.P. (Simcoe—Grey), then a minister, for entirely inappropriate reasons. Both Mr. Jaffer and Ms. Guergis would have been extremely aware of the code of ethics that applies to members of Parliament; even if there are no serious consequences for Mr. Jaffer’s drug possession and driving drunk, the House of Commons should come down on Ms. Guergis with the full weight of its authority for her transgressions.

Good one FiveParadox, plus "She noticed a bag inside one of the pockets — what would later be determined to be about a gram of cocaine, a small amount but a banned substance for which possession is a federal crime."

 

[CDNBear]

I’m referring to lone wolf’s attempts to keep up, at all costs, his reverence for Rahim Jaffer as an outstanding citizen.

I'mnot getting that vibe Paradox. You may want to look at whom those posts are to. I think it's more a matter of trying to educate someone as to the propaganda they spew.

(“It’s just a little coke, it doesn’t mean he’s an addict! He was probably just holding it for his friend! Big, mean police officer!”)

I don't think that was his sentiment at all...;-)

Trust me, LW is more even keeled then I am.

 

[Colpy]

Haha, are we going to have the Conservatives now defending Jaffer’s drug habits? That’s cute.

Whether or not there was interference at a leadership-level, the fact remains that Mr. Rahim Jaffer used the offices of The Honourable Helena Guergis P.C., M.P. (Simcoe—Grey), then a minister, for entirely inappropriate reasons. Both Mr. Jaffer and Ms. Guergis would have been extremely aware of the code of ethics that applies to members of Parliament; even if there are no serious consequences for Mr. Jaffer’s drug possession and driving drunk, the House of Commons should come down on Ms. Guergis with the full weight of its authority for her transgressions.

ABSOLUTELY!

And, you will notice, Ms. Guergis is no longer in cabinet, in fact she no longer sits as a Conservative MP.....

And she has definitely not been appointed ambassador to Denmark.

 

[CDNBear]

ABSOLUTELY!

And, you will notice, Ms. Guergis is no longer in cabinet, in fact she no longer sits as a Conservative MP.....

And she has definitely not been appointed ambassador to Denmark.

What do you think of the Ethics Commissioner's claim that she doesn't have enough information to proceed with an inquiry?

Given Harper stated he turned over all information in his possession, you would think if it was of such an outrageous context. As to precipitate her Guergis being bounced, you would think it would be enough for the Ethics Commissioner, non?

I'm beginning to think that Harper overreacted to make it look like he's all ethical now.

 

[JLM]

I’m referring to lone wolf’s attempts to keep up, at all costs, his reverence for Rahim Jaffer as an outstanding citizen. (“It’s just a little coke, it doesn’t mean he’s an addict! He was probably just holding it for his friend! Big, mean police officer!”)

How do you know that's not true?

 

[CDNBear]

How do you know that's not true?

Touche!

 

[JLM]

What do you think of the Ethics Commissioner's claim that she doesn't have enough information to proceed with an inquiry?

Given Harper stated he turned over all information in his possession, you would think if it was of such an outrageous context. As to precipitate her Guergis being bounced, you would think it would be enough for the Ethics Commissioner, non?

I'm beginning to think that Harper overreacted to make it look like he's all ethical now.

With politics you never know, whichever way it happened you just know there was corruption involved, and all parties are the same, all tarred with the same brush. I see old Ignatieff is starting to get noisy. Wonder what he thinks he's planning..........:lol::lol::lol:

 

[CDNBear]

With politics you never know, whichever way it happened you just know there was corruption involved, and all parties are the same, all tarred with the same brush. I see old Ignatieff is starting to get noisy. Wonder what he thinks he's planning..........:lol::lol::lol:

Probably a tea party...tongue in cheek, lol.

 

[FiveParadox]

What do you think of the Ethics Commissioner's claim that she doesn't have enough information to proceed with an inquiry?

Ms. Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of Canada, would have had to halt any investigation as soon as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had launched their own investigation, pursuant to s. 49(1)(b) of the Conflict of Interest Act. Also, per s. 49(1)(a) of the same Act, the Commissioner is responsible for stopping an investigation and alerting authorities instead if there is a reasonable cause to believe that the alleged offence(s) is already covered under any other Act of Parliament.

I'm beginning to think that Harper overreacted to make it look like he's all ethical now.

If the prime minister wanted to have anything to do with ethics, then he would have sought to enact the rest of the Federal Accountability Act that he so heralded a very long time ago. Many sections of this, his holy grail, continue to collect dust on the books because Her Majesty’s Government for Canada never set a date for these sections to come into force.

 

[CDNBear]

Ms. Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of Canada, would have had to halt any investigation as soon as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had launched their own investigation, pursuant to s. 49(1)(b) of the Conflict of Interest Act. Also, per s. 49(1)(a) of the same Act, the Commissioner is responsible for stopping an investigation and alerting authorities instead if there is a reasonable cause to believe that the alleged offence(s) is already covered under any other Act of Parliament.

OK, this is not what was stated in the media surrounding this event. What is stated is, she couldn't proceed for lack of grounds. According to the Star article.

If the prime minister wanted to have anything to do with ethics, then he would have sought to enact the rest of the Federal Accountability Act that he so heralded a very long time ago. Many sections of this, his holy grail, continue to collect dust on the books because Her Majesty’s Government for Canada never set a date for these sections to come into force.

Do I appear to be a choir boy? :lol:

 

[Socrates the Greek]

With politics you never know, whichever way it happened you just know there was corruption involved, and all parties are the same, all tarred with the same brush. I see old Ignatieff is starting to get noisy. Wonder what he thinks he's planning..........:lol::lol::lol:

:tongue2:

 

[lone wolf]

I’m referring to lone wolf’s attempts to keep up, at all costs, his reverence for Rahim Jaffer as an outstanding citizen. (“It’s just a little coke, it doesn’t mean he’s an addict! He was probably just holding it for his friend! Big, mean police officer!”)

Reverence? I think not. You sounded reasonably intelligent. Please DO try to avail yourself of some education. Addiction means dependence. Possession means has. It's really not that complicated.

 

[FiveParadox]

Reverence? I think not. You sounded reasonably intelligent. Please DO try to avail yourself of some education. Addiction means dependence. Possession means has. It's really not that complicated.

Perhaps you should review the conversation; you appear to be trying to defend Mr. Jaffer, to play down the negativity of what has happened to him. Whether he is an addict is irrelevant, the fact is that he was caught with cocaine and therefore should have been prosecuted to the maximum extent allowable under the law. Mr. Jaffer was a member of our House of Commons not too long ago, and should be held to a higher standard of ethics.

“You don’t know that he’s an addict—it was probably just a one-off. He’s just a good little stressed-out Conservative.”

And thanks for the reputation; must’ve clicked the wrong radio button, I know you meant green!

 

[lone wolf]

Perhaps you should review the conversation; you appear to be trying to defend Mr. Jaffer, to play down the negativity of what has happened to him. Whether he is an addict is irrelevant, the fact is that he was caught with cocaine and therefore should have been prosecuted to the maximum extent allowable under the law. Mr. Jaffer was a member of our House of Commons not too long ago, and should be held to a higher standard of ethics.

“You don’t know that he’s an addict—it was probably just a one-off. He’s just a good little stressed-out Conservative.”

And thanks for the reputation; must’ve clicked the wrong radio button, I know you meant green!

Perhaps you should just read the words on the page and leave the spaces between alone. I haven't defended anyone. Fantasy a problem for you?

 

[FiveParadox]

No no, lone wolf, fantasy’s never been a problem for this one. ;-)

Following the ups and downs of the Stephen Harper government is easier if you can pretend it’s a Tim Burton film.

 

[FiveParadox]

Perhaps you should just read the words on the page and leave the spaces between alone. I haven't defended anyone. Fantasy a problem for you?

1. Member accused Rahim Jaffer of being a coke addict.
2. You defended Rahim Jaffer and said he only possessed cocaine.

All stop.

 

[lone wolf]

No no, lone wolf, fantasy’s never been a problem for this one. ;-)

Following the ups and downs of the Stephen Harper government is easier if you can pretend it’s a Tim Burton film.

I tend to think of it as a jack-in-the-box with a mismatched hairpiece.

 

[FiveParadox]

I tend to think of it as a jack-in-the-box with a mismatched hairpiece.

:lol::lol::lol:

Love it.

 

[lone wolf]

1. Member accused Rahim Jaffer of being a coke addict.
2. You defended Rahim Jaffer and said he only possessed cocaine.

All stop.

Damn.... Look as I might, I can't see where I am defending by saying he was in possession. Having done the addiction route myself once, I would tend to argue addiction as a defence.