Driving while unbelievably lucky


Rahim Jaffer: arrested on charges of speeding, driving drunk, and possession of cocaine. Sentenced to … a $500 fine?

OBLIGATORY TWITTER LINES: Next time I’m hiring his lawyer… So much for tough on crime… The cocaine probably cost more than that… He’s suffered enough — he’s married to Helena… etc etc


Driving while unbelievably lucky

  1. I guess conservatives are tough on crimes not committed by them.

  2. It was the sentence for careless driving that got him the $500 fine, the cocaine posession and drunk driving charges were withdrawn, as the crown wasn't convinced it had enough evidence for conviction.

    Cue Spock eyebrow here.

    • I don't understand. Did he have cocaine on him at the time of the arrest or not? Did the office imagine all this?

      • I guess cocaine is a magic powder? I really have no idea how evidence like that just disappears from the record. Unless there was some suggestion that it was improperly obtained…which, at face value, I don't even buy.

  3. Uh, huh – meanwhile Guergis' whole family are involved in politics up there – mayors, counsel members.

    This stinks bad

    • Maybe this was Helena's happy f*ing birthday present.

      • LOL!!

  4. I'm sure there will be an investigation to see whether the police actually confiscated cocaine and took an alcohol test or just made these charges up. Yeah, right.

    • Now we're questioning the motives of the Police and suggesting that they just "made up" charges of cocaine possession???

      Is there anyone left in Canada who's NOT out to get the Tories?

      • Nope

      • In case it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic. This story proves that friends in high places might get you something, but one thing it is not going to get you is fabricated charges. I think that is pretty obvious.

      • Are you questioning the motives of the Crown and the Judge, suggesting that they conspired to destroy evidence and obstruct justice?

        • Actually, I was mocking that very suggestion, however I see from catherine's reply that said suggestion was meant to be sarcastic, so I guess there was no need to mock it!

          Everyone can move along….

  5. A DUI charge lowered to careless driving: both are traffic violations, so this is plausible, if extremely generous. Jaffer will not have a criminal record and therefore will not face barriers to international travel.

    However, dropping the possession of cocaine charge is unusual in the extreme. This charge has nothing to do with operating a motor vehicle. There's something fishy going on here.

    • The evidence got stuck up at an airport in some "hell hole" and had no shoes to throw at the security guard to get them to re-open the gates.

    • Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 253

      It's not a traffic violation.


    • Evidence. There is no *admissable* evidence. Not on the breathalizer or on the DUI. Someone screwed up the search and detention. Police screwed up. And screwed up so bad the prosecution didn't even think the judge could keep it in notwithstanding being offside the rule book. There's an interesting story to be told here.

  6. I agree, this smells rotten.

    Or maybe he had Margaret Trudeau's lawyer.

    Maybe the phrase should be "Driving while unbelievably politically connected"

    • But…but…but…THE LIBERALZ!!!!


      • Yes we know…………the Liberals and NDP are beyond reproach and should be left alone. When they have a lapse in judgement, it is nobody's business, especially for the media in this country. Ignore, deny, sweep under the carpet and repeat!

    • Oh, well, if the Liberals did it first…………never mind.

      • It wasn't my point…did you not read the part where I agree that it smells rotten? The point was more that having connections pays…Liberal or Conservative.

    • Chances are if it's something the Liberals did first, it's really truly evil.

  7. No point in jailing him, Guergis can rip open iron doors with her bare hands.

    • And that's just what happens when someone screws up her drink order. Imagine the damage she can do when she's really angry.

    • I guess neither of them will have to spend another day in any "hell holes", etc.

    • Not with her bare hands, no. She biffs boots at them.

    • No point in jailing him, he already lives with Helena Guergis.

    • Uh, we have to be careful with our assumptions here. Unfortunately, technicalities can get people off, whether they're "connected" or not.

  8. Thank God the Tories are in power. Soon, this kind of lax sentencing and taking the word of criminals over that of the police will come to an end. Mr. Jaffer may have benefited from the Liberal justice system in this country, but rest assured that his wife and her colleagues are working tirelessly to make sure this sort of thing never happens again.

    • Well then, no wonder this sort of thing happens. Nobody's had any sleep, so they can't work effectively.

      I call for the institution of naptime in offices everywhere!

    • Dreaming of the coming Tory majority. We'll get this distinction between good decent citizens and real bad people even better defined and everybody will know where they stand.

      • Based on which party they vote for.

  9. "I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one," Judge Doug Maund told Jaffer in an Orangeville, Ont. court.

    No kidding.

    • Yes, I think he was appointed to the bench due to his powers of understatement.

    • I think we all can recognise this for what it is.

      • A cop who screwed up the search/breathalizer and breached Jaffer's Charter rights, or a cop who lost the evidence? There's a police conduct / evidence issue here that noone is discussing.

        • Worthy to note matt. These kinds of technicalities can make us all cynical.

  10. Rahim Jaffer leaves the courthouse in Orangeville, Ontario on Tuesday…

    Small town. Cheap.

    • You stay classy Dot.

      • Orangeville is not a small town? I've only once made a pit stop there.

        $500 is expensive? (not relative to his lawyer's fee, I bet)

        • Yeah Dot, I'm sure you weren't making any allusion to John Gomery's infamous comment, eh?

          No need to denigrate an entire town due to some former Conservative deciding to drive through the area after a few beers, and with cocaine in his car.

          • IF I was making any comment at all about a small town, it might have something to do with the justice system there. Of this I can be sure: Orangeville gets orders and orders less of cocaine possession charges heard in its court than would say Ottawa or Jaffir's old haunt, Edmonton. And with all politics being local, the smaller the local…

          • Dot, Orangeville isn't a village. Nor is it living in 1952 or something. They might not have to fill six concurrent courtrooms with drug charge hearings, but I'm fairly sure there isn't a town with a courtroom that doesn't have its fair share of drug charge hearings.

          • Orangeville (2006 population 26,925; UA population 29,110) is a town in south-central Ontario, Canada, and the seat of Dufferin County.

            Here's a question. Do you suppose more lawyers/prosecutors/judges started their careers in small towns, or finished them there?

            You are making the same mistake as others. Not all "drugs" are created equal, nor distributed the same way. You tell me. Say I wanted some coke. Would I be more likely to find some in a small town bar, or a big city nightclub?

          • Hell, Dot, you want cocaine, no need to go to the small town bar, just go to the nearest high school. And this includes high schools in towns less than half the size of Orangeville.

          • There are more drugs in rural Canada than in the cities.

          • Cocaine, specifically? Let's not include grow-ops here.

          • Meth, mushrooms, and acid, anyway. Perhaps, as you say, cocaine and heroin are more an urban thing.

          • coke has spread strongly to the country (rural areas) as well and its price point has dropped remarkably in recent years as well. i believe this development is largely (allegedly of course) attributed to biker gang related distribution.

  11. Hmmm…. we should keep track of the Crown Attorneys involved in this case and see if they get appointed by Harper to the bench.

    • Crown Attorneys are appointed by the provincial goverment, so McGuinty is the one you want.

      • Um, no. Federal Crowns, who do the drug prosecutions, are federally appointed.

        • Prosecutors are hired by the province. Of course Hutch missed PeteTong's point, that these provincial employees would be rewarded through a federal appointment to the bench (ie they would become judges). Not that I agree with PeteTong, I simply can't see Harper willing to risk a scandal on the likes of Jaffer

          • Drug prosecutors are hired by Ottawa, not the province.

          • CA1867, s.92(15)? Or am I insane…

          • Mr. Jaffer's criminal charges fell within the purview of the Ontario Court of Justice. The Crown Attorney for this case is Marie Balogh, who works for the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General. Her position is not a federal appointment.

          • For the impaired or the cocaine possession? Because drugs are Federal.

          • Thanks Jan for that completely unenlightening and factually incorrect statement.

            While the Parliament of Canada establishes the Criminal Code, the Federal Court of Canada does not have jurisdiction over criminal cases. In Canada, criminal cases, including those related to drug cases (possession and trafficking) fall within the jurisdiction of the provincial courts.

            And if you don't believe me, then please explain why his drug possession charge was being heard in the Ontario Court of Justice?

          • Jeez, get it right people. Yes, the case was heard in a provincial courtroom, presided over by a provincially appointed judge. The cocaine offence itself, however, is federal. It requires the involvement of a federal, not provincial, Crown Attorney. The decision to drop the cocaine charge was a federal decision, not a provincial one. It dismays me that the Conservatives are saying otherwise.

          • Martin, thank you. That said, is there any chance there is a delegation, MOU, contracting, etc. arrangement for the provincial Crown to do narcotics prosecutions in that neck of the woods?

          • My belief is that even if the provincial Crown speaks up in court as agent for the federal Crown regarding the drug charge, it's the federal Crown behind the scenes who must make the decision on dropping the charge. This is the point that Joe Cromartin and others have been trying to make, while being drowned out by the nonsense from Vic Toews and others.

          • The point is that the Crown might be rewarded with a FUTURE federal appointment (to the bench) for her efforts

  12. I agree that it looks like far more of a gift than he deserved, but: I'm sure everyone outraged today is, of course, equally outraged when non-high-profile, non-Conservative criminals negotiate improbably lenient plea bargains with the Crown. I mean, they'd have to be, right?

    Also noteworthy: "So much for tough on crime"-style jabs are misguided; the prosecutor that agreed to this deal answers to the Attorney General of Ontario. Drug offenses under the Criminal Code can be toughened 'til the cows come home, but it's still up to the provincial prosecutors to use available criminal charges (or not) at their discretion in a case like this.

    • Speaking for myself, yeah, I'm pretty peeved whenever a person charged with first-degree sexual assault pleads guilty to a misdemeanor, someone who kills a family while drunk gets charged only with failing to remain at the scene…etc. You do the crime, you do the time, and so on. But it's especially bad when these deals are handed to people with ties to the system, because not only are they receiving more lenient treatment, it gives the perception that people in power are above the law. And that…just doesn't jive.

    • I am open to an argument of "well-connected political elites get a separate standard of official treatment regardless of party or level of government," however.

      I think that's what we're looking at here. The parallels between this case and Margaret Trudeau's drunk driving acquittal are actually quite striking.

      Trudeau – pulled over for driving erratically
      Jaffer – pulled over for speeding

      Trudeau – alcohol smelled on breath, failed breathalyzer
      Jaffer – alcohol smelled on breath, failed breathalyzer – also found with cocaine

      Trudeau – various rights allegedly violated by police
      Jaffer – Ontario DA says "Significant legal issues are impeding the case" (of DUI and drug possession…could be illegal search?)

      Trudeau – acquitted
      Jaffer – $500 fine on misdemeanor charge, no criminal record. For all intents and purposes, charges dropped.

      Trudeau – later admitted she was driving drunk
      Jaffer – TBD?

      • Ok. here's a half-baked theory and would love to get a reaction:

        Maybe, just maybe, the police violates rights on a regular basis, but it is not brought forward or taken seriously because it is the rights of someone insignificant. When it is someone who has a higher profile, it is taken more seriously? They are better informed? Better understand the tools at their disposal?


        • Probably not far from the truth…it must be an almost impossible job to be a police officer today without accidentally violating somebody's right to something. Combined with better lawyers…

          Again, Trudeau's case is particularly illustrative of this. One of the things was that the police apparently violated her rights to choice of attorney because they called the number of the lawyer she provided, and an answering machine picked up. They didn't tell her that, and told her instead that no one was home. Bingo. Violation of Charter Rights. Acquitted on that basis.

          Would not surprise me in the least if Jaffer's cocaine charges disappeared in much the same way.

        • This is where having a high-priced lawyer really comes in handy.

    • God! It's McGuinty's fault.

    • As I pointed out elsewhere in comments, I do not believe that the Crown responsible for this deal "answers to the Attorney General of Ontario". I haven't appeared as counsel in criminal court for a while, but in the past it was always the Federal Crown, not the Provincial Crown, who had carriage of any drug allegation. This deal, as it relates to cocaine, was done by a Harper appointee.

    • "So much for Tories being tough on crime"-style jabs are misguided

      Fair enough. (I think the "so much for Tories being tough on crime" jabs are much better applied to the Tories killing their own crime legislation THREE TIMES) but still, everyone should be allowed to have their fun. Not being able to poke fun when a well connected Tory gets a lenient sentence after (allegedly) being caught with cocaine would be the less sexy Canadian equivalent of not being able to make fun of a born-again Republican who solicits a gay prostitute. And come on. That's just funny.

    • Interesting points. But it then begs the question: if being "tough on crime" rests with the prosecutors, and if they are not applying the full power of the law already at their disposal, why is the Harper government making so much noise about toughening the criminal justice system?

      • Because the Conservatives are pandering to their base.

    • I thought drug prosecutions were a Federal responsibility.

    • "… I'm sure everyone outraged today is, of course, equally outraged when non-high-profile, non-Conservative criminals negotiate improbably lenient plea bargains with the crown. I mean, they'd have to be, right?

      No, actually many are not. Svend Robinson anyone?
      But since when is the Left any kind of standard for moral consistency? We can do a hell of a lot better than that…I hope.

      • I'm not sure there is a single political party in Canada today who has any claim to more consistency.

        • I wasn't speaking of a political party, but rather of ideologies.

  13. Did they give him his cocaine back?

    • Yes, they put the cocaine bag back in the glove compartment.

    • Best question of the day

    • Yes, with explicit instructions to make his way to the nearest safe injection site so he can ply his trade in a Liberal approved establishment! Do you people have no shame with your hypocrisy??

  14. Classic tale of "Our principles do not apply to us".

  15. If possession of cocaine is no longer illegal in this country I recommend a coke party to celebrate. Unfortunately, I don't have any connections to organized crime, so I hope the convenience store starts carrying cocaine soon.

    But remember kids, don't do drugs and/or drink and drive, you might get a small fine.

  16. Guergis was born in Barrie, Ontario, and raised in nearby Angus, part of Essa Township, where her family has a history of political involvement. Her cousins David and Tony Guergis are respectively the current mayors of Essa and Springwater, her sister Christine Brayford is a municipal councillor in New Tecumseth, their uncle Edward was a municipal councillor in Essa from 1978 to 1985, and their grandfather George was a reeve of Essa from 1971 to 1974

    ….a family business

    • Oh right! It's all MY fault now!

      I refuse to accept it. Just because my father-in-law was the only druggist in Angus, you will NOT pin this on me or my family!

  17. If you wanna hang out
    You've gotta take Hellena out
    If you wanna get down
    On Bruce Huron ground

    Just don't drive
    Just don't drive
    Just don't drive

    If you got bad news
    You got PEI blues
    They don't know what ya done
    And you wanna run

    Just don't fly
    Just don't fly
    Just don't fly


    • Hats off to that Stewart. Brilliant.

    • Nice.

      I was thinking more of Johnny Cash…

      Early one mornin' while makin' the rounds
      I took a shot of cocaine and the cops they took me down
      I went right home and then Helena said
      I'm a gonna shriek and have a cow 'til dis issues dead

      Sorry Johnny.

      • There's also "a little ditie about Jaf and Guergis" out there somewhere

        • Jaffy and Guergy were lovers
          Lordy how they could love
          Keep each other out of prison
          As free as the stars above
          He was her man
          Wouldn't do her no wrong

          • I howled at all this, thanks.

    • I get no jail for cocaine
      Mere alcohol doesn't fine me at all…

      • Excellent!

  18. Well that's it then. Thank god our PM stacked the senate so we can get those tough on crime laws out the door now, right? This'll never happen again.

    • Until the next time a powerful person gets nabbed for something.

    • This just shows up what a putz Nicholson is. He somehow thinks he can control the treatment of crime by sentencing alone. That by taking away judge's discretion punishment is a given. There is discretion all along the way – from the police deciding not to recommend charges, to the Crown deciding now to proceed.

  19. Canwest's Janice Tibbetts reports:

    The latest information from the Canadian Centre of Justice Statistics shows that only half of the drug charges laid in 2007 resulted in a finding of guilt and 16 per cent of adults convicted of possession were sent to jail for an average of 19 days. Judges were far more likely to impose a fine, which they did almost half the time, or probation, which they did almost one-third of the time. Jaffer, however, fit in the most common category of all — the 50 per cent who saw their charges stayed, withdrawn, dismissed or discharged. So, if Jaffer got a break, so did about 12,500 of the 25,000 adults charged with drug crimes in 2007, the latest stats available.


    • And the DUI portion?

      • According to Ms. Tibbetts: "But whether he got an unusual break for the impaired driving charge is another question."

    • The stat is useless without the circumstances. It could be that 90% of those charged SHOULD have the charges discharged because it was for possession of a single plant which has medicinal use. It could be the reverse. But just putting out the stat as if that's some sort of excuse or justification is a bit of red-herring.

      • I was going to say something similar. This is selective stats quoting, or spin. "Drug charges" could include a high percentage of marijuana, a different level than cocaine. Also, lumping in charges stayed, dismissed or discharged with withdrawn (Jaffer's situation) to arrive at 50% is also misleading.

        • Out of curiosity, are you accusing CanWest's legal affairs reporter of "spin" and selective stats quoting? I just linked to her article because I thought it was interesting.

          • Yes.

          • Janice Tibbetts is a reporter, not a columnist. As far as I know, nobody (aside from you) has ever accused her of bias or "spin".

          • I accuse you of changing my words, and then trumping up the "accusation". In the orginal I said "selective stats quoting, or spin." Of course, I ruled out the possibility that she is simply ignorant of the proper use of statistics. I'd entertain a plea bargain on that basis.

    • The link isn't working for me… but can I assume that that includes marijuana offenses?

      Because if so, it is like including petty theft with armed robbery; or dime bags with 8-balls.

    • Thanks Crit,
      I'm sure every one of them were Conservative operatives catching a break thanks to Harper and his minions in the justice system!

  20. To answer your question, yes. It bothers me when this happens, especially when it seems the rich and well connected get special treatment (regardless of the party affiliation). That really burns my toast.

  21. To be honest, this does not bother me that much. Would putting him in jail and throwing away the key made Canadian society any safer? Would it have scared other cocaine users into stopping out of fear of the consequences? Probably not…. However, because of this incident his career is over (well what was left of it) and he has definitely been subject to more public shaming than the average criminal (not necessarily a punishment or quantifiable, but it still stings).

    Of course this touches on a whole bunch of other issues about what is the role of the criminal justice system and how best it can keep society safe, secure and orderly….

    • …………and also on the fallacy of 'Tough on Crime' rhetoric.

  22. I trust the prosecutors and what they felt they could make out as a reasonable case and appropriate plea more than I trust the not fully informed guesswork of journalists and commenters.

    If any real interesting info comes to light regarding the penalty imposed, by all means write about it. In the meantime, wild speculation does nobody any good.

    • The trier of fact, the individual who had to accept the plea bargain, the judge, stated: "I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one." Perhaps others do as well.

      • one sentence, chosen by a newspaper, is interesting. but it doesn't constitute an entire file.

  23. Funny how minim mandatory sentences only apply for the non-elect CRAP members. I got it form a MP that the Tories wanted to plea bargin this case. What’s that about semi-hidden agendas? It seems to me that the Fundamentalist cabal in the CRAP party want to etablish a two tiered sytem of Citizenship: those that are fundamentalist christian and the rest of us, those that get raptured and those get to rot back on earth.

    To those of you who think that a Tory majority will change crown decisions regarding wether or not to prosecute, your are living in fantasy land. The same is true if you believe that minimum mandatory sentences will reduce crime – just look at the case in California where 11% of their budget (probably an equivalent to Canada’s economy) is being pissed away supporting prisions and paying up to $100K a year for each and every innmate, while the crime rate skyrockets.

    Get a grip, read some research on the topic and start THINKING for YOUSELF for a change. The bible is 2000 years out of date (why else would there be an industry still trying to make it relevnat to today’s world?) and Old Testament morality never worked outside of early agricultural socieities. Catch up to reality already; the rest of us are waiting and you know what, even though we are not the ‘elect’ , we are good people on the whole.

    PS: God is not dead, he washed his hands of human idiocy.

    • I dream of a Tory majority that imposes capital punishment for spelling and grammar like yours.

      • matt
        I'm as big a spelling and grammar nazi as anyone and I fail to see anything objectionable in beentheredonethat's post.

  24. In B.C. if you fail a breathalyzer you automatically lose your license for 90 days. The suspension comes almost immediately after the incident. You have to wait for the trial to fight the accuracy of the results.

  25. The right question is who did Rahim Jaffer rat on to get away?

  26. Fine and good, all very reasonable. Is there anything there which leads us to believe his treatment was outof the ordinary for a first offence where the Crown isn't sure it can make out possession?

    • That's a fascinating thought. That perhaps the police detected cocaine residue, but not enough to go to trial on without substantial risk to a conviction, and had a faulty breathalizer or something, and charged to the max for fear that to do anything other than the maximum would look like giving a recent politician a break. Pretty improbable though.

  27. "It wasn't my point…"


    • Utterly believeable, but I share the sentiment behind the statement.

  28. His breathalyzer test measured more than 80 milligrams of alcohol, the court was told. He was charged with cocaine possession and driving over the legal blood-alcohol limit. His licence was suspended for 90 days.

    It's a good thing the Conservatives are cleaning up the justice system when someone only gets a $500 for these charges.

  29. I wouldn't make it a habit of quoting Ms. Tibbetts.

    • Why shouldn't I?

      • You can quote anyone you want. I wouldn't quote her – she is not credible based upon the stats she presented that you quoted. Just because her current gig is "a justice and public safety reporter with Canwest News Service" means nothing – though it may carry some weight with you. I'm not a lawyer, but I bet I've had just as much or more legal training as her. And I also know a thing or two about stats.

        • She's a competent, experienced and professionally impartial reporter who is a survivor in an industry (and a company) that has experienced mass layoffs.

          She's one of the few Canadian reporters who covers the Supreme Court. I don't know her educational background, but since she has written hundreds of articles about court cases and Canadian legal issues, I'll assume that her knowledge of the law vastly exceeds yours.


          • <i.She's a competent, experienced and professionally impartial reporter</i>

            That's an opinion. And ususally to be professionally anything requires being a member of a profession. Is reporting a profession?

            Reporting on the Supreme Court proceedings is quite different than compiling and producing evidence. Her efforts on this minor undertaking do not withstand the slightest scrutiny, as you yourself admitted (acknowledging the shortcomings of inclusion of marijuana stats – in your reply to Nich, at least one hour after I raised the same point).

          • And usually to be professionally anything requires being a member of a profession. Is reporting a profession? Is reporting a profession?

            Yes. Not that it matters to your point, though, because "professionally" is an adverb that modifies the adjective "impartial". One needn't belong to a "profession" to be "professionally impartial".

            Her efforts on this minor undertaking do not withstand the slightest scrutiny

            You're reading way too much into what she wrote. She wasn't trying to "spin" anything, she was simply reporting facts.

            acknowledging the shortcomings of inclusion of marijuana stats

            She was reporting statistics from a Statscan study. We don't even know if the study she cited broke down drug charges by drug type. At any rate, it's up to the reader to interpret the facts she presented. There's nothing that she reported that would even remotely justify accusations of bias.

          • There you go again. Where did I say "spin" or incompetence?

            Your partisanship is showing – starting from the point where you quoted from your "legal begal" without comment nor qualification. Why did you quote it to begin with? To influence individuals like S.S. who are quoting it elsewhere on another blog here? How much do you want to be these misleading stats will be used as talking points elsewhere?

          • Ok, I did say spin. Was too lazy to look.

            Say, have you ever prepared and submitted evidence, cross examined witnesses, been involved in any legal /quasi judicil proceedings? I guess I'm asking why should I accept your opinions on these types of issues over mine?

          • How much do you want to be these misleading stats will be used as talking points elsewhere?

            Ha! Just was swinging the channel and came across Joe Comartin (NDP Justice Critic, lawyer) being scrummed on CPAC, and a male reporter asked that very same question: 25,000 similar cases, 50% not convicted – what's the big deal?

            JC replied – why not go to trial (obviously rejecting the 50% as I did – lumping stayed, withdrawn, dismissed or discharged. together)? That would be normal according to JC- trial. Also, DUI? They had evidence – failed breath test. And, according to him, based upon his work with Conservative Party – "the two beer defence" Jaffer was using was legislated invalid.

          • Now I'll state the only stat that might be remotely relevant, IMO:

            Percentage of people charged with possession of cocaine that have the charges withdrawn that is not a part of a plea bargain.

          • I was busy at work, but now that I'm free I'll try my best to respond to your four (!) replies.

            Where did I say "spin" or incompetence?

            Here's some of what you said (condensed version):

            This is selective stats quoting, or spin…I wouldn't make it a habit of quoting Ms. Tibbetts…her efforts on this minor undertaking do not withstand the slightest scrutiny…she is not credible based upon the stats she presented…her current gig means nothing…I wouldn't quote her.

            You tried set the record straight when you added: "Ok, I did say spin. Was too lazy to look.". (But not too lazy to post four comments, apparently.) The fact remains that you impugned the credibility of an honourable reporter based on nothing but specious assumptions.

            Your partisanship is showing – starting from the point where you quoted from your "legal begal" without comment nor qualification.

            The funny part is that I quoted her blog post because I found it interesting… without partisan intent. I made no attempt to endorse it, I simply provided a quote and a link as an FYI. As my previous comments right here indicate, I think Jaffer got a lucky break (in other words, he got off too lightly).

            Sadly, this didn't prevent you from jumping to conclusions about me and poor Ms. Tibbets. (Btw, did you see her previous blog entry challenging the Harper government for contradicting one of Iacobucci's previous rulings? I'm pretty sure she isn't on Harper's Christmas card list.)

            Hopefully, you'll learn something from this.

          • Hopefully, you'll learn something from this.

            No, just reinforces what I had already known.

          • Maybe you should quit before you’re past your neck in the cement . . .

          • Sorry, I don't see your point. CR posts a selection of some reporter's analysis. I point out that it doesn't withstand scrutiny, and is not credible, and wouldn't myself rely on her analysis. Then he defends her by misquoting me etc etc. Poor reporter, boohoohoo.

          • John Ivison just now on Power and Politics claiming 50% of drug possession charges never go to trial. Wrong.

            Hopefully, you'll learn something from this.

  30. Asked for comment, Ms. Tibbetts said, "Who are you? What are you doing in my house?"

  31. It will be interesting to see if this sparks any type of discussion within the CPC caucus…either behind closed doors or even in a suitable public setting.

    Perhaps some good can come of this incident.

  32. My solution: newer libraries, opera houses :)

    • Well, I like it better than my solution, which is a cop in every classroom, two in every corridor, and a platoon or two in every parking lot and/or field. Bathrooms to be closed altogether.

    • Are you saying the opera house in Orangeville is no good? http://www.orangevilleconcerts.ca/operahouse.htm

      I've only been to Orangeville once, for only a couple days, but I was extremely impressed. Really nice town. Would have thought it was smaller than what is indicated above, but it's also a fairly sophisticated place.

      • (Jenn I think is from Orillia – the library next to the Opera House there is being replaced)

        • Well, I was. I haven't been to the library there for a long time, though. Although I remember the weekly trip very fondly. Still, the town isn't that small Mariposa anymore and I'm more than sure it's outgrown it's library. Is it still going to be beside the Opera House?

  33. Well, I guess it's safe for me to take that "courier" job after all, I know some Tories too.

    Anyone need another hit?

  34. I am shocked, SHOCKED to find that Conservatives are being let off the hook by other Conservatives.

    By the way, where are all the usual suspects who should be on Conservative talking points about this ? How very disappointing.

    • They're reworking their Michael Bryant talking points. It was going to be such a slam dunk.

  35. I am so disappointed with our host. I had always counted him among the very few non-stupid Canadian journalists. But he has become so anti-Harper that a typical garden-variety plea bargain in provincial court, which happens dozens of times every single day, but in this instance involving a Federal ex-MP, results in the defaming of police, prosecutors and members of the judiciary. For what? To just to get some frisson of a thrill by indirectly insulting PM Harper and Conservative political views? For all our host's holier-than-thou rants declaiming of the Conservatives for supposedly showing disrespect to Parliament and democracy, he is quick to defame other important institutions such as our criminal justice system, and the judiciary, on the basis of gossip and innuendo.

  36. I'm not sure there is an ideology in Canada today that has any claim to moral consistency.

  37. This is truly outrageous… but then again it isn't. It's just another example of politicians (or former) living in a completely different world than the rest of us. The past month has really magnified the disconnect. This incident, the Guergis hissy fit, the private jet, the MLA expenses in NS.

    How do you solve this problem? Realistically we can't fire them all and start over. I'm not sure what the solution is. Extreme transparency enforced strongly by the media would help matters quite a bit.

    Rahim will have to take the heat for the next few days but nothing will be done and he'll live the rest of his life with no criminal record. The media will move on to something else. He knows it and you can hear the arrogance when he speaks about it.

  38. I was very happy last night watching At Issue panel where Allan Gregg reminded our host and Peter M and Chantal H that as a private citizen Jaffer owes nobody any explanation; that any suggestion that the Ontario justice system was granting some favour to an ex-MP who is not a candidate for election was "preposterous;" and reminded out host about the presumption of innocence in Canada which means if Jaffer was not charged, tried and convicted of a crime then he is innocent. He also said that opposition and media reaction to Jaffer plea bargain is throwing justice system into disrepute.

    Chantal changed to the subject to saying that Helen Guergis was a weak minister and should be dropped from cabinet. Our host persisted in saying Jaffer was still some sort of public figure and therefore he should explain to him and Canada why he took a plea bargain.

    It was definitely not our host's finest moment. I have disagreed with Allan Gregg on issues before but on this one he is bang-on.

    • I could not disagree with you more, drunk driving kills innocent people and Gregg did not even mention how serious this crime is, he just tried to say we all have things we are ashamed of and leave Jaffer alone. Sorry Orval and Gregg you are missing the whole point, Jaffer is not innocent, he blew over the limit and cops found cocaine in the car. They made some "error" in processing Jaffer and the injustice system let him off. We all know he is guilty of drunk driving and cocaine possesion, and we want to know how much cocaine was found, how many grams, where in the care was it, and what was the chemical analysis of it? And we want to know the results of the breathalizer, and we want to know what mistakes were made by the cops! As Andrew said in the US all the details would be on the table for all to see! We want the truth and we want it now! We don't need a justice system to find him guilty, we the people will find him guilty and judge him as we see fit, and anyone else like him! Justice demands the truth be made public in this case!

      • Hey TJN, you had me going there! I thought I was reading the script to The Oxbow Incident. I got the joke when I read your penultimate sentence.

        I always recall the words of John Mortimer's Rumpole of the Bailey, played on TV by the late Leo McKern, who would say in court that the two greatest British exports to the rest of the world were the Great British Breakfast and the Presumption of Innocence. This principle is what makes our justice system work – the rule of law ( impartial) versus the rule of the mob (arbitrary).

        If the media want the principle of freedom of the press to be respected they should respect the other rights as well, such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) otherwise in a court of law. The media's behaviour in most cases has been shameful.

        • No Orval, you were reading the script to 12 Million Angry Men and Women. It's a story about how one man is trying to tell the public the accused is innocent even though the police found cocaine on him and he blew over the legal limit, but the policeman makes a clerical error and now the whole case is lost and the accused walks out the door laughing. But it does not end there, the lone juror fails to sway the rest of the jurors and accused is judged in the court of public opinion and is found guilty, by about 93% of the people, which is far worse than what would have happened if he had admitted his crimes in the first place and took his punishment. He would have received a light fine, lost his license for year and had to do some community service and maybe gone for some drug and alcohol counseling. Everyone's anger would subside and they would feel sorry for him and wish him well in the future. Forgiveness would be found in all the people's hearts, and the accused would have kept the most important thing of all, his integrity.

          This script however is a tragedy, things don't go well for the accused, the justice system or the conservatives, all of them are cursed and judged by the 12 Million Angry Men and Women. It does not end there Orval, the 12 Million form a posse and start tracking down the evil doers to get them out of the courts and out of government. I can see how you thought you were reading the script to the Oxbow Incident, it does have a posse scene as well, but no this is titled 12 Million Angry Men and Women.

Sign in to comment.