Guergis speaks out...

[Machjo]

That's your opinion.

I'm of the opinion, that when a duly elected official is asked to resign, I want to know why, period.

The partisan speculation that would be filling the airwaves, bandwidth and papers, would be astronomical.

If it turns out to be an over reaction and Harper acted in bad faith, then a court can decide his and the Party's fate.

Until then the public, has every right to know the 5W's. People have died for us to have that right.

So it's up to Harper to reveal that there's a criminal investigation against Guergis, but it's up to the courts to decide any civil case against Harper? I agree with the second point. But for the sake of consistency, i'd have to apply it to the first point too, otherwise I'd have to conclude that it's up to Guergis to announce to the public that she's suing Harper and co., thus dragging her to his depths.

 

[CDNBear]

So it's up to Harper to reveal that there's a criminal investigation against Guergis,

Yes.

but it's up to the courts to decide any civil case against Harper?

No, it's up to the courts to decide if he's guilty, just as it's up to the courts to decide if Guergis is guilty or not.

thus dragging her to his depths.

She's accused the Gov't of lying. Same thing, she has that right to.

 

[Machjo]

She's accused the Gov't of lying. Same thing, she has that right to.

I suppose if you put it that way, once she chose to speak out publicly as he had, she'd evened out the playing field. Now the gloves are off:lol:

 

[Machjo]

She's accused the Gov't of lying. Same thing, she has that right to.

I guess another way of looking at it is this:

Had Harper not publicly revealed the reason he had removed her from Cabinet (though certainly he ought to inform her of it), and she'd chosen to go public with the details of what happened and accuse Harper of lying, that would have been way out of line. If she should have an issue, she take it up in court.

However, once Harper had revealed the criminal accusations publicly, it became a public matter from that point forward, thus giving Guergis the green light to defend herself publicly too.

 

[CDNBear]

If she should have an issue, she take it up in court.

Yep.

However, once Harper had revealed the criminal accusations publicly, it became a public matter from that point forward, thus giving Guergis the green light to defend herself publicly too.

Harper only revealed the ethics violations. He's never publicly stated anything about the criminal accusations, other then there's accusations. Even Soudas was quite clear about that and was quite apt at avoiding saying anything more on that in his interview.

 

[Machjo]

Yep.

Harper only revealed the ethics violations.

As for the ethics violations, I don't know, since they are a Parliamentary matter, maybe that was reasonable;I'd have to give it more thought.

He's never publicly stated anything about the criminal accusations, other then there's accusations.

I know that. My point is, even that was none of our business, as it's a criminal matter and thus beyond the purview of Parliament. Parliament has minimal authority over the judicial branch of Government, and Harper should have left it to the RCMP to reveal what they wanted.

Even Soudas was quite clear about that and was quite apt at avoiding saying anything more on that in his interview.

If you can't say anything about the allegations, then why even mention that there are allegations?

 

[Machjo]

What is it, Care Bear? You don't trust the RCMP to do their job?

 

[CDNBear]

I know that. My point is, even that was none of our business, as it's a criminal matter and thus beyond the purview of Parliament.

Not at all. She's an MP, if she was acting in criminal capacity. It is our right to know.

Parliament has minimal authority over the judicial branch of Government, and Harper should have left it to the RCMP to reveal what they wanted.

He did. He hasn't said anything other then she was forced to resign over serious allegations.

If you can't say anything about the allegations, then why even mention that there are allegations?

Because she's an MP.

What is it, Care Bear? You don't trust the RCMP to do their job?

I have no idea where you get that idea.

 

[Slim Chance]

When did I ever say she's innocent?

You didn't. This is what you said:

It still won't excuse what he did, but it could help somewhat in that people will figure that though he'd ruined her life, at least she did turn out guilty.

That statement goes no where to recognizing the Guergis has any kind of personal responsibility for her actions - you have offloaded that component directly onto Harper based on your distaste for him.

But when he opened his mouth and revealed possible criminal acts, he essentially pt his fate in the hands of the RCMP. If they say nothing, he sinks; if they make an arrest, he saves some face. Had he not revealed the reason for her dismissal, then he would not have had to worry about that.

I think that you've already discussed this with CDNBear with the suggestion that harper is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Let's not pretend here Machjo, if Harper DIDN'T take action, you'd be screaming to the heavens that he was covering-up a corrupt party member and call for his removal... There is nothing that harper could do that will ever meet your approval which satisfies your self-fulfilling prophecy that he is bad.

And by the way, you're just revealing more partisanship. Is it necessary for me to be a member of the LoC to criticize Harper?

I brought up the LoC as a matter of convenience based on the scandals associated with the last liberal governments. If you feel more comfortable, I can find a cultural, religious or gender-based option for you to use as a crutch on Guergis' behalf... Just let me know.

 

[Avro]

Lol, you're assuming Machjo is a Lib?

Too funny.:roll::lol:

 

[Machjo]

You didn't. This is what you said:




That statement goes no where to recognizing the Guergis has any kind of personal responsibility for her actions - you have offloaded that component directly onto Harper based on your distaste for him.

I'm not blaming Harper for any of her actions. I'm blaming him for his action of revealing that there were allegations before they were even founded.

 

[CDNBear]

I'm not blaming Harper for any of her actions. I'm blaming him for his action of revealing that there were allegations before they were even founded.

Just the mere inference of impropriety is enough to set off a political powder keg Machjo.

Harper did exactly what he should have. Head off the controversy and remove her from Parliament. As I've said before, he's damned if he does and damned if don't. If in the end all turns out to be false and he was aware of that, then he should be held responsible. But at this point, that's all speculation.

As for your continued belief he shouldn't have said "there are serious allegations". We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe as a public figure, she is and should be held to a higher standard, where her public office is concerned. As it should be with all politicians.

Neither you nor I have the level of privacy you are demanding for Guergis. Why would Guergis be any better then us?

 

[Machjo]

Let's not pretend here Machjo, if Harper DIDN'T take action, you'd be screaming to the heavens that he was covering-up a corrupt party member and call for his removal... There is nothing that harper could do that will ever meet your approval which satisfies your self-fulfilling prophecy that he is bad.

I don't have to pretend. If harper had removed her from Cabinet an turned info to the RCMP, I'd be satisfied with that. As for removing her from Cabinet, that's his prerogative. If she'd violated certain Parliamentary ethics rules that have been proven, that might be legitimate to mention to the House. Like I said, I'm undecided on that one yet. As for removing her from teh Party Caucus, that's an internal party matter. As for accusations of him trying to protect her, removing her from Cabinet and turning information over the the RCMP with full knowledge that sooner or later the RCMP may choose to reveal some of that information to the public for some reason or other is hardly protecting her.

If you read some of my past posts, especially around the prorogation period and last election, I'd mentioned that I actually liked his idea of tax breaks for children's music lessons to replace arts funding, and also supported him in his initial opposition to bail out the car industry. Seeing that other parties were even more in favour of it, I'd hardly say I'm a party hack out to get this or that party. Prove to me that I'm not equally critical of the opposition.

I think this is the problem. Our society has become so bloody partisan that if I criticize a particular member of the government, it's immediately assumed that I'm attacking the sacred institution of his party.

I can't remember so much about what i'd discussed concerning the Dhalla affair, but I'm pretty sure if I try to find those posts here that whatever position I'd taken would be totally consistent with the one I'm taking now. No party politics here. In fact just to prove it, I'll look for the posts now.

I brought up the LoC as a matter of convenience based on the scandals associated with the last liberal governments. If you feel more comfortable, I can find a cultural, religious or gender-based option for you to use as a crutch on Guergis' behalf... Just let me know.

The Liberals are no longer in power. What's your point?

 

[Machjo]

Lol, you're assuming Machjo is a Lib?

Too funny.:roll::lol:

Yup. Pidgeonholing at its finest.

 

[Avro]

Yup. Pidgeonholing at its finest.

It's "you don't agree with me so you must be an....fill in the blank".:roll:

 

[Machjo]

And as for the Dhalla affair, here's the thread:

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/83992-ruby-dhalla.html

I challenge anyone to find any quote of mine there that contradicts what I'm saying here. It has nothing to do with party, but principle.

 

[Machjo]

It's "you don't agree with me so you must be an....fill in the blank".:roll:

I think it has to do with:

"I'm a die hard my-party-right-or-wrong kind of guy, so I can't imagine for the life of me that anyone would not be a card-carrying party fanatic like me."

 

[Avro]

I think it has to do with:

"I'm a die hard my-party-right-or-wrong kind of guy, so I can't imagine for the life of me that anyone would not be a card-carrying party fanatic like me."

Less party that it is ideology.

I respect your free thinking.

 

[Slim Chance]

I think it has to do with:

"I'm a die hard my-party-right-or-wrong kind of guy, so I can't imagine for the life of me that anyone would not be a card-carrying party fanatic like me."

I really don't care what your politics are. The reality is that you're all up in arms about Harper getting rid of Guergis, apparently because Stevie didn't call you up personally and explain his reasons.

If there is actually an investigation, Harper will not comment as the investigation is ongoing.

If he dumped her because he doesn't like her fro whatever reason, that's his business and that of his party. If there is legal fall-out; tough sh*t for Harper.

As far as your pissing and moaning about being pigeon-holed, look no further than a mirror and you'll see who is to blame.

 

[Machjo]

I really don't care what your politics are. The reality is that you're all up in arms about Harper getting rid of Guergis, apparently because Stevie didn't call you up personally and explain his reasons.

Are you literate? I'd been saying the exact opposite, that Harper never should have informed me that there were criminal allegations against her because it was not my place to know that. Sure I have a right to know she's no longer a part of Cabinet, but that's it. I don't even need to know if she's still a member of the CPC Caucus since that's an internal party issue anyway.

Now as for the Afghan documents, each and every MP has a right to those otherwise there is no more democracy and accountability in our system. Personal matters ought to be kept personal, while political matters ought to be made public, or at least to the House. This Pm does the exact opposite.He doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between political and personal matters.

If there is actually an investigation, Harper will not comment as the investigation is ongoing.

I can understand that. But based on that, why did he comment about the investigation at all then. Certainly if the RCMP thinks we need to know, it would have made it public in due course. You don't trust the RCMP? And again, this shows your illiteracy because I supported his keeping that secret if the police require him to do so, but on that account he should have kept it all under wraps.

If he dumped her because he doesn't like her fro whatever reason, that's his business and that of his party. If there is legal fall-out; tough sh*t for Harper.

No argument here.

As far as your pissing and moaning about being pigeon-holed, look no further than a mirror and you'll see who is to blame.

So I'm expected to act in a certain way to not be associated with this or that party? So, pray tell, how do you expect a non-Liberal to behave so that you not confuse him for a Liberal?