The Commons: Questions of character -

The Commons: Questions of character


Two days short of a vote that may redeem everything he has said and done these last eight years and moments after addressing a crowd of 2,000 that spilled out of the room and into the street—so much so that the police were compelled to close down the block—Jack Layton is taking questions about a massage he received one night 15 years ago.

Was last night’s report of the massage true? Was the massage prescribed by his doctor? What time did he receive the massage? Had he ever had a massage there before? Was he aware of the establishment reputation? Did it look “sketchy?” How did he react when he heard about last night’s report about the massage? Will he be taking any legal action in regards to the report about the massage? Who does he think is responsible for what he considers a smear?

“I went for a massage at a community clinic,” he says. “The police advised that it wasn’t the greatest place to be and I left and I never went back.”

He has run four campaigns as the leader of a national political party—this last one on a broken hip, just over a year after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Not until just days ago did he do so as anything other than a longshot. Only recently could he claim anything like a real chance of achieving real relevance.

And now he stands here and takes questions about his “character.”

“Not at all,” he says, talking past the first attempt to broach the matter of this massage’s deeper meaning. “Here we are, we are working to bring real change to Ottawa. And offer a real alternative in this election and that’s what people are looking for right now. They’re looking for help with their family doctors. They want to see jobs created. They want to see their pensions protected. This is the kind of change that they want to see and that’s exactly what we’re offering in this election.”

The reporter tries again, but Mr. Layton barely pauses to acknowledge the question.

“Well, there was no wrongdoing at all so it’s not an issue,” he says. “I think what people are concerned about are what’s facing their families. That’s the key issue that people are looking for us to be working on and our offer to Canadians is to make some real change and get results for their families, each and everyday.”

Half the 30 questions that are directed at him have to do with other matters.

What about the 2,000 people who showed up today? Does he think he can capitalize on the NDP’s opportunity? Is he nervous?

“The adrenaline is flowing, that’s for sure,” he says. “And I think that’s happening with all of our candidates and workers because I think there’s a sense that we’re on the threshold of something very exciting.”

Why now? What’s happened? What’s changed?

“I think people were prepared to give Stephen Harper a chance,” he says. “And they found that things didn’t really change in Ottawa. There were lots of promises made that things were going to be done differently … And so a lot of people are saying we need to move in a new direction.”

And what about that hip? And the cancer?

“Anybody who’s had cancer crosses the fingers because you never know what’s going to happen in life,” he says, “but I’m feeling great.”


The Commons: Questions of character

  1. The former Asian crime unit officer, who requested anonymity, details a prior police raid on the "premise currently ID as a bawdy house" looking for underage Asian hookers and a subsequent follow-up visit to the two-storey brick storefront on Jan. 9.

    At first the policemen didn't realize they were interviewing one of the best-known Toronto politicians who was married to Chow, also a Metro councillor and now the incumbent NDP MP for Trinity-Spadina.

    The officer's notebook indicates he asked the suspected john: "Did you receive any sexual services?"

    He replied: "No sir, I was just getting a shiatsu."

    The cop: "Why did you have all your clothes off?"

    The suspected john: No answer.

    The cop: "Are you aware that there were sex acts being done here?"

    The suspected john: "No sir."

    The woman, who was from mainland China, denied masturbating the suspected john but when the question was repeated became nervous and replied, "I don't know I only come to work today," the cop's notes show.

    His notes also claim he saw the "female dump wet Kleenex into garbage."

    this is anything but innocent, Jack (in) got caught. But Wherry wants to give him the benefit of the doubt. Your secret is out Jack. Sianora, shiatsu my a$$

    In the interview with the Sun, the officer said: "I asked him for his wallet and I looked at his name and I looked at the last name and it looked familiar.

    He's registered as 'John' and I thought he's a 'john.'"

    Layton's Christian name is John.

    • Nice copying and pasting

    • Get a grip DPT.

    • Layton supporters care about this the exact same amount that Rob Ford supporters cared about his DUI conviction.

      • Except Ford WAS convicted. Layton wasn't even charged!

    • Alleged notes from a cop who wouldn't give his name, who admits being anti-Layton, to Sun News. Yeah, this is super trustworthy.

    • You're really sad.
      Supporting the Conservatives is one thing . . . many people have been deceived by a deluded narrative about economics into imagining that the Con approach to economics works and is more important than all the harm they do. That's a pity, but it's sincere.
      But this kind of thing is just sleazy nonsense and parroting it is vicious and irresponsible–the sign of a Con voter who identifies with the Cons *because* they're thugs and bullies rather than despite it. Either that or, while we're thinking about prostitution, the sign of someone being paid by the word. Probably one of those American Swift Boater types the Conservatives have working for them. Just because they sacked one American sleazebucket when he got caught doesn't mean they don't have any more.

    • The fact that the officer requested anonymity doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the OPP is now investigating it and what he did was quite unethical, does it?

      I guess, in Canada, the police now subjects citizens to the court of public opinion when they can't make a case.

    • Seriously? The officer thought he was 'a john' because his name was "John"? Is this even a real police officer?

      • If his name had been Rob they might have suspected him of robbing the place.

        • If he had been Bill, they would have paid him.

          • If it was Art, they would have framed him…

          • If it were Matt, they would have had him down on the floor.

    • Is the Government of Harper turning MacLeans into a branch office of the gutter-press Sun?

    • Fantino?

    • I know I have caused some discomfort on this site with my statements since the election. I have also made people think about the controlling billionares that are trying to steal our country and control our wealth. I must say this; Our country is at a crossroads right now and our vote has never meant as much as it means today. We must rid ourselves of the Harper dictatorship once and for all and tomorrow we can do that as a united country. The Conservative party of today is not the conservative party of our fathers and grandfathers and it is Harper that is responsivble for that. He must go because we are Canadian and not american and we resent being treated as such. We are not Fox news north nor will we ever be. We live in a country with hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of natural resources and they belong to us, Canadians. Our economy will not suffer under an alternative government other than that of the controlling tories. Vote to save Canada on May 2. Vote ABC. God bless Canada!!!

      • Please, shut up already. That same post is no more convincing than the first ten times I saw it.

      • You posted this exact message on another page. Socialist spam! I love it!

  2. The real question is: Does anyone care?

    I'm a bit surprised with the Tories in this election – attacking Ignatieff's family and bringing up stories like this about Layton. Do they really want reporters to start talking about what the Harpers and Conservative cabinet ministers get up to in their free time? Bring it on I say.

    • a) If it doesn't matter if Layton paid for a hooker in a bawdy house, why are some of you flipping over this story?

      b) Where do you get that this story came from Conservatives? According to the National Post's Jonathan Kay, Liberals came to him with this story two years ago, and he says he didn't bite.

      • Now, now, don't be obtuse. You know exactly what Tizzle meant by "what the Harpers and Conservative cabinet ministers get up to in their free time?"

        • I don't understand people who come on here as insulting and ignorant as you do and believe you're actually doing yourself any favours, or displaying any shred of credibility.

          • Give it up Dennis — you're sucking wind.

          • Then why are you the one who's only capable of this one-line knee-jerk nonsense? lol. Next.

          • And the wind tastes like marigolds! AaaaaaH…..traleelee.

        • Anon, meet Dennis_F. Obtuse is sort of his specialty.

          • In other words, you can't respond with facts or substance, so you have to engage in these personal attacks. Is your ideology that thin and angry?

          • Dennis_F, above: "I don't understand people who come on here as insulting and ignorant as you do and believe you're actually doing yourself any favours, or displaying any shred of credibility."

            Dennis_F, just now: "In other words, you can't respond with facts or substance, so you have to engage in these personal attacks."

            If you ever achieve basic self-awareness, you're going to disappear up your own ass and never be heard from again. Got my fingers crossed.

          • So I call you on posting a one-line personal attack against me, and you merely post my responses to other people who are doing the same. You think this helps your case, does it? lol

          • Like I said, self-awareness isn't exactly forthcoming, is it?

          • The truth isn't exactly something you're at all interested, is it? Where do you get off accusing me of not being accountable for my own posts? Some people have a lot of nerve on here.

          • I do believe the point TJ is making is that attacking others and name-calling rather than attempting any real refutation of their arguments is your specialty. That you also call others on it is hypocritical in the extreme.

            And yes, Dennis, I acknowledge that I've been guilty of the same behaviour from time to time – especially in response to you. But usually in response to prior, similar verbiage, or to inject a bit of humour.

          • Name one instance of where I've ignored a substantive point made by a poster and, instead, personally attacked them.

            You only accuse me of such because you can't address my arguments. You can't address the substance of my posts. So, you resort to this garbage. Thank you.

          • You've done it to me alone too many times to count. I'm certainly not going to waste my time going through old comments to pull out examples; it's not like I save them anywhere.

          • Then it should be easy to post just one example, shouldn't it? In fact, this accusation is usually thrown at me because people get furious for not being able to attack me substantively. So, they have to resort to this garbage. Congrats.

            btw, just go into your IntenseDebate list of posts and find one example supporting your knee-jerk accusation against me.

      • b) Harper's war room does stuff like this + we are talking Sun Media + now the Police are announcing their investigation and keeping the story in the news + this entire election Harper has been desperate for a majority which is slipping away. Add it up.

        • In other words, it doesn't matter what happens, or what the story is, you're going to blame it all on a Harper conspiracy and keep making baseless accusations against him. Ah, the irony, double standards, and complete hypocrisy.

          • Ah…you seem to be prepared to hang Layton out to dry on the evidence of a known conbot rag using possibly illegally obtained police evidence. There hasn't been any kind of a trial, and no opportunity to cross examine the officer. Whether you like it or not he's innocent till proven guility. Yet you appear to want him tried in the court of public opinion. What were you saying about hypocrisy?

          • I have not left Layton "out to dry." You, on the other hand, are engaging in the tiresome knee-jerk rhetoric of "conbot" and such that doesn't bode well for your own credibility. The left admires people who turn over illegally obtained evidence all the time when it suits their purposes. In this case, we don't know if that's happened, yet you're very quick to make the accusation, aren't you. And you call ME a hypocrite, do you?

            Layton was not charged with a crime. Yet, I believe if he wants to be prime minister, he should account for his presence in the bawdy house under the circumstances he found himself. Why is that prospect such a horror to some of you?

          • Shouldn't you be spending time polishing your resume? The gravy train is coming to an end for you guys. Soon you will find out how great the economy really is.

          • Shouldn't you be doing more than engaging in these nonsense knee-jerk posts against people who are obviously more successful than you? lol. next.

          • He gave an explanation which was apparently sufficient for the police at the time – but now, years later, not for anti-NDP types.

            Unless you have evidence he's lying, then the only reason for making it an issue is because you think it helps your side; not because of any interest in truth or justice. Right now, all we have is an anonymous source with an admitted axe to grind.

          • Awww, you always use 'other words'. Which have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POST TO WHICH YOU RESPOND!

            HUH? THE WHA…? CATS? OH……

            whoops! caps off….sorry for, um, shouting.

          • I ALWAYS address the substance, or lack thereof, of posts. You're obviously the one who can't, right? It must be very frustrating. Too bad. Next.

  3. Think about all the chintzy stories the media jumps on when it comes to Harper and his government: wafers in pockets, Bernier's girlfriend, Carson's girlfriend at 24 Sussex, etc.

    Meanwhile, Jack Layton, who might well be prime minister shortly after the election, was possibly caught having sex with a prostitute during a police bust, and we're supposed to look the other way. Fascinating that.

    • You 'law and order' Conservative types sure seem to forget that law "innocent til proven guilty" stuff quick when you want to smear an opponent.

      • He wasn't charged. He's not guilty of a crime. It doesn't mean questions shouldn't be asked about what in the world was he doing in a bawdy house naked with what appears to be a young hooker. Especially by today's media standards. But I guess they only apply when it's Conservatives who are being attacked. Again, fascinating that.

        • Sure questions can be asked; they're allowed. But a police officer has certain privileges and responsibilities within their jobs, and one of those responsibilities is offsetting their privileged access to information against their responsibility to protect that information. The reason, of course, is because their initial impressions may not match the actual circumstances. Perhaps, if the masseuse in question were to pop up and give her side of the story, this would be a different conversation. She could certainly raise questions. But this is way out of bounds for an ex-cop to be speculating about in the media.

          This police officer may have had an excellent career, but is doing all police officers everywhere a complete disservice. I hope the OPP nails him to the wall.

          • When insiders spill the beans on conservatives, even when committing a crime be releasing top secret documents, they're hailed as brave whistle-blowers. When it's done against the left, the people who do it are hounded. Funny that.

          • I don't know who you're referring to, but if you're talking about Assange then you won't find me mounting a defence of him. I've got huge issues with American secrecy, but I don't support him releasing diplomatic cables or the like; I think it's irresponsible. When it came to a Conservative like Ritz being nailed to the wall for his "death by a thousand cold-cuts" comment during the listeriosis outbreak (which I thought was an extremely clever quip, by the way), I thought that an investigation should have followed and that bureaucrat fired. There was no reason for that type of conversation to be leaked, especially months later during an election. When the Globe released that hatchet job speculating about difficulties in a certain high-profile marriage, the reporter was deservedly canned, and the story died instantly.

            However, if you leave top secret documents on your girlfriends' nightstand you deserve to be taken to task for that. If you try to manipulate a contract so that your fiancee receives financial reward, it should probably be investigated. See the difference there?

            There is no investigation here because nothing highlighted in the report is anything more than circumstantial, at best. We don't know what the other attending officer's notepads said; for all we know, they were more or less favourable to Layton's case. But we can surmise that they had no more firm evidence, as the case was never pursued. These notes are protected vigorously by cops because they can cause significant harm in the wrong hands. This is why this anonymous ex-cop is currently being pursued by the OPP.

          • As an aside, I did get a chance to watch the documentary "Secrecy" a couple years ago, and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants a very pragmatic and historically-rooted discussion of how government secrecy developed in the United States. It goes through supreme court cases, interviews agents, politicians, and high-profile individuals. It's really very well done, and not at all partisan. It's definitely not a Bush/Cheney pile-on or anything.

          • Thanks for the recommendation.

    • The police had ample cause to make a case and bring it before a judge during the intervening 16 years. The fact they didn't have the evidence necessary to make a case equivalent to the conclusion you're drawing means that this is a smear, not an active investigation.

      And, for the record, I've never supported the silly stories the media has run on Harper, including the wafergate, etc. Most is hyperbolic nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. However, the Bernier and Carson case is quite different, because they involved sensitive documents and potential conflicts of interest directly impacting the Canadian people.

      • The police at the time may well have decided they had bigger fish to fry. Does that mean Layton shouldn't be clear about what he was doing there?

        What I'm saying is I don't see how this isn't a story.

        • What bigger fish is there than a city councillor caught in flagrante delicto? That would secure your division's budget for years. It doesn't make sense that they would simply turn a blind eye.

    • He wasn't caught having sex. The closest the story gets is some wet kleenex. Not that anyone cares whether he had sex or not.

      I do think it is relevant as to just what kind of place this was, as far as whether the women were coerced, exploited or abused. The police shut it down shortly after.

      • If nobody cares whether he had sex or not, why does it matter if he was caught having sex or not?

        I think that it is not prime ministerial behaviour in the slightest for a man to be caught naked in a bawdy house having paid for sex, especially if he was married. You say it doesn't matter. Really.

        For the record, I think this is marginal story at best, for many of the reasons stated by others. Yet I still do think it is a story. And it's more than that if he was in fact hiring a hooker to perform services on him.

        • Boy, for a "marginal" story, you sure are intent on inflating it as hard as you can.

          • Really. Where do I do that? I think it is a story, unlike leftists and the media, and this is an example of inflating it, is it?

            A man who wants to be prime minister was caught naked and in a compromising position during a sting in a bawdy house, and there are no questions to ask? Come on.

          • Should you ought notta refresh y'self on the in's n outs of libel litigation? 'Cuz you are a public personage, right? Proudly so! Just sayin,,,g.

            No offence. No prejudice.

        • I think that it is not prime ministerial behaviour in the slightest for a man to be caught naked in a bawdy house having paid for sex, especially if he was married.

          I agree that it would not be Prime Ministerial, but it would perfectly Prime Ministerial for a man to be 'caught' giving a licensed masseuse money for a massage, right? So we're stuck on terminology here. Was it a massage clinic or a 'bawdy house'?

          EDIT: As an aside, I have no idea why the Sun used the term 'bawdy house', as no one under the age of 50 has the slightest idea what that is.

          • Well, I'd be more than happy to settle for the story that this was nothing more than a man getting a message – except the context. He was naked. He was caught in a rather compromising position, so to speak. He was in what was actually a whore house (is that better?). It was busted as such when he was there. I also think it's reasonable to assume that he wasn't charged because the evidence wasn't great and there were bigger fish to fry in that sting. Simply embarrassing a politician might well not have been a priority for the police department, at least not back then.

          • I wondered about that too, actually. I do know that many people do get their massages naked, so that didn't surprise me. And for all we know, he was receiving a massage in the normal "face-down" position, and then rolled over when the police started busting down doors. Hence how he would have been discovered on his back.

            But really, we're speculating. I'll definitely grant that he should have never gone into a known whorehouse, but it's unclear if it was only known to be so to the police. Sometimes it's just stupidity and dumb luck, not malicious intent.

          • If you just want a massage probably best not to go to a place with the name "Velvet Touch Massage" with women in skimpy clothes. But maybe it is a matter of smart versus stupid or dumb as you suggest. A Toronto councillor said this:

            "He's claiming he got a legitimate massage, but the issue here is it's clear it was a rub-and-tug and most people in society would know that when they go in. I'd be very surprised that a very smart politician would not have known … and Jack was very smart."

          • Ah, just what this situation needs: more innuendo.

            Got a name for that councillor? Got a link to the quote? And even if you do, is that quote any more than innuendo? How was is "clear" that the place was dodgy? Is there any evidence that Layton got any more than a massage?

            Put up or shut up, all of you. It's easy to inflate a story, it's very difficult to provide any actual proof.

          • "He was in what was actually a whore house…"

            See, here's an excellent opportunity to employ the new word you've learned, "allegedly".

          • That part isn't in dispute is it? The news I watched didn't put alleged or suspected in front of "bawdy house" and the police did shut it down shortly after they raided it.

          • Ah, the "news you watched" didn't include the word "allegedly"?

            I guess that meets your high standard of proof, eh?

      • catherine, how do you know the police shut it down soon after?

    • So a Harper-government-compromised CSIS guy peddles a questionable report to the Harper sleaze-rag under false pretenses as a former cop, and you call that the 'media'?

      • I have no idea what you're talking about in that post of yours. You might want to read mine again and come back with something coherent. Just a suggestion.

  4. Aaron, are you still deleting comments that point out what a ridiculously transparent partisan flack you are for trying to portray Harper as wrong to draw a distinction between the policies and political culture of the federal NDP and the provincial prairie parties? Or are you so ignorant of Canadian politics that you actually don't know anything about the differences? Or are you such a shameless hypocrite that you'll keep wheezing about Harper's alleged anti-democratic ways while continuing to censor commentary which points out obvious facts about Canadian politics which you are too ignorant and/or hacktastic to acknowledge? Let's put it this way, Aaron: anyone who attempts to conduct a discussion of Canadian politics which overlooks the widely-known-and-discussed differences between the policies and political culture of the federal NDP versus the prairie parties of the same name – and who goes so far as to suggest that making such a distinction is actually illegitimate and should serve to discredit the person making it, rather than illustrating that they possess the most elementary levels of common sense concerning Canadian politics – is someone who is so clueless about Canadian politics, or so committed to misrepresenting it for partisan gain, that they should not be in the journalistic profession. Period. Get a new job, Wherry, You are not qualified for this one.

    • Gee, you're posting an anonymous comment here.. just like that cop did. Are most Conservatives cowards?

      • You know who else once posted an anonymous comment? Hitler.

        • Here we go Canada. When in doubt or when in defeat cry 'Hitler' you should be ashamed of yourself and you owe the rest of us Canadians an apology not to mention what you owe the Jews of our country and indeed the world. To compare a reporter you do not agree with to Hitler is just sick. Plain and simple. You are a sick person! Now apologize immediately.

          • WTF are you babbling on about? I never compared anyone to Hitler. I was making fun of the very idea by mocking @stribe39's resort to ad hominem attacks as a way of dodging the issue – something people also often do with Hitler analogies. You are a very dense person. Not Hitler! Just very very dumb.

          • Now apologize immediately!

          • Sorry! See, unlike a tory I can say that word. However, please leave Hitler out of it!

          • Oh come on, are you serious? Get a sense of humour – yeeeikes!

      • Given that the story might well have been fed by Liberals. are you willing to call them cowards in relation to this story, too? Oh, and lefties make anonymous attacks on here all the time. Only they usually can only muster a one-line knee jerk effort in the process.

        • This is all a sideshow. Maybe it's cowardly, maybe it's not. That's another discussion for another day. What is clear is that, either way, anyone who implicitly or explicitly suggests, as Wherry has done, that it is illegitimate to draw distinction between the policies and political cultures of the federal NDP versus its namesake provincial prairie parties is someone who is either so ignorant of Canadian politics that they should not commenting on it, or someone who is so blindly partisan and committed to shameless hackery that they should not be in the journalistic profession. Wherry has now proven clearly that he does not deserve to be a political journalist in this country. But rather than attempt to defend his ludicrous attempt to deny the legitimacy of drawing a distinction between the policies and political cultures of the federal NDP versus its namesake provincial prairie parties, it is easier for his fellow flacks to try and change the subject.

          • I, too, find it amazing that there are journalists in this country who don't know the difference between provincial and federal parties.

  5. I hate to repeat myself, but I think this is worth repeating. Jon Kay of the National Post posted a very interesting revelation on Twitter:

    For those who care, someone tried to shop me the Layton-massage story 2 yrs ago (without docs). It was a Liberal fixer.

    Could have been Tories pushing the Layton-massage story this time. I dont know. But last time around, it was the Lib back office.

    I didnt bite because the source wasnt talking, and I couldnt get the cop's notebook through access-to-info, so I dropped it.

    And I mention this only because the leak itself has become the story — with many folks unfairly assuming it must have been CPC.

    Didnt pursue it because (a) source wasnt talking at the time, (b) my access-to-info request for the necessary docs was denied.


    • They would certainly stand to gain the most. If you look at second choice preferences of NDP voters, 37.7% favour the Liberals while 13.5% favour the Tories. Kinsella also mentioned he knew about the story before this, so it could have made the rounds in Liberal circles.

      • Here's the Kinsella link. It is a bit telling that Kinsella didn't want to touch it with a 50 foot pole.

        If the Liberals did this, that'd be be so incredibly ill-advised.

        • When you are about to fall off a cliff, doing nothing is ill-advised.

          And in theory, if the story flies Dippers would return to the Liberal party, while if it backfired, people would blame the Tories.

          • Good point about doing nothing, but it is at best a short-term move. Longer term, this just hurts everyone, especially the party that leaked this.

            That said, if it was the Liberals who did this, leaking it to the Sun was pretty smart tactically as they're so associated with the Conservatives especially following that mess with Muttart.

      • Yup. Also, to quote Kinsella:

        If the story ever saw the light of day, I told this person, it would hurt the source more than it would hurt the target. I still think that. If people within a political party were ultimately behind this – and there are four political parties which would have a direct interest in getting this story out – they'd better hope to God they don't get found out before Monday night. Right now, there isn't a voter in Canada who doesn't think a political party was wrapped up in this somehow.

        Feeding the story to the Sun benefits the struggling Liberals in two ways. The default assumption is that the Conservatives are behind it, because it's the Sun after all. So any blowback hurts the Conservatives, but the Liberals get most of the benefit.

        • On the flip side, the Liberals have the most to lose if they were to be fingered as the ones who leaked the story.

          As a side note, I'm pretty amused that you and hosertohoosier are pointing your fingers at the Liberals.

          • I can only assume your days must be filled with laughter, because for C_R and h2h to be pointing fingers at the Liberals is like the sun setting in the west.

          • On days that I read their comments, yes, my days are filled with laughter and glee. Despite being on the far side of the political spectrum from them, Crit_Reasoning and hosertohoosier are my two favourite commenters on the blogs here as they're funny, reasonable, and articulate in ways that are rare on blogs like this.

            I don't need to agree with them to enjoy their comments greatly.

          • You often choose to call people liars without foundation, Thwim. Are you calling the journalist Jonathan Kay a liar, now, too?

          • Dear leader will reward us in the afterlife if we malign the infidels!

            For the record, I blame the Sun. This story puts them on the map – and they don't have much to lose by being seen as merchants of sleaze. We'll see how Quebecor's stock does come Monday.

        • After initially blaming the CPC, I suggested this last night as well, CR. The big question, however, is why the Sun would pick it up? Kory isn't a complete idiot; he would have seen how this would have made the Sun look, and the difficulties it would have caused the CPC.

          The other part of it, while not really a defense, is that the CPC has done their reputation no favours by carpet-bombing Ignatieff over the past 12 months. Even if they're pure as snow, everyone naturally assumes it'd be them.

          • To channel Coyne: If this is hung around the neck of the tories, even if they are innocent in this case, they have no one to blame but themselves given their horrible record. It's karma. Dion must be smiling today.

          • Why wouldn't the Sun pick it up? This kind of story is right up their alley. Do you really think they would have turned this story down, depending on who fed it to them? No. After verifying the evidence, and after checking in advance with the NDP legal team, they'd run the story regardless of its provenance.

          • Yeah, the raison d'etre of the Sun is "we tell the stories other networks don't". One of the first shows they ran involved Ezra showing the Muhammad cartoon for no apparent reason. And as much as people hate trash, they are drawn to it. I'm not going to lie – the story got my attention (not that I'd watch the Sun – I just get pbs).

          • Because they were the only outlet so offered such 'exclusive' material? Just a guess.

            Kinsella's a punk. Kay's a reputable shill. Three 'K's and yer out.

        • I'm sure the OPP will figure it out.

    • Someone has a camera with a telephoto lens aimed at your window, Kermit.

      • Um, what? That's a creepy thing to say.

        • No no, don't be creeped out. We stalk you because we love you.

          • I think that's precisely why its creepy.

    • Why should I start believing Jonathan Kay today?

    • It's times like this when I bet the CPC wishes it had a leader who could generally be taken at his word.

  6. Jeez where's Pat Martin – he was quick enough off the mark with Helena and Jaffer, not to forget Carlson and the escort as 24 Sussex.
    The hyporcrisy on the left is hilarious.
    BTW now that the OPP is investigating one assumes the OHIP/Extended Coverage claims that Layton was entitled to, would have produced receipts. That should lay all this to rest – if it was a therapeutic massage in a 'community clinic'.

    • let's just save us all a bunch of needless typing…ALL the parties have prior form as hypocrites.

  7. "No oil Mr Jack? Oh you must be married. Lie back and we make happy ending."

    • Ah, the intersection of racism and political expediency.

  8. Jack Layton has a life, and he is animated even though he is hurting; he is not a plastic character like Harper!

    Layton has given honest answers to a broad field of open questions many times being at a disadvantage.

    He is a brave person who occasionally needs a massage.

  9. The statement by OPP that they are investigating the (alleged) 'leak', sounds in itself smear-material. Are they in on the smear-campaign?

    What is wrong in Harper is a matter of open record. The evidence is before us: the ^NOT insertion; the Guergis 'serious allegations' smear, using the RCMP's name and function; using the RCMP vs a student rally-participant via Facebook; stare-down opponent and speak into camera debate; the utter F-35 20-year fiasco (that he STILL doesn't see as fiscally wrong), proroguing, detainee foot-dragging, etc., ad infinitum.

    And Ignatieff? rise up! uh…what…? rise up? empty. pointless. useless. The man has no meaning.

    This is why people are turning to the NDP. We don't have any alternative.

  10. Maybe I'm naive, but I never thought for a second about whether one party or another gave the information to SunTV. I just thought that SunTV, a new, extremely right wing but struggling television station, was the only outlet that would run with the "story". They need the press, everyone else could stay away (as they rightfully should have).

    I just assumed the story was given to them by a former cop with an axe to grind with his old boss.

    • Plausible. My first instinct was to blame someone in the CPC because this fits so naturally with their modus operandi – but there are plenty with motive. So now I'm reserving judgment – both on Jack, and on who the true source of and motive for the leak might be…

    • That's an interesting pov RSA. Perhaps i'm too quick to accuse the tories.It's true they have lots to gain, as do the libs.It is also true they both have an awful lot to lose too – the BQ is a bit of a mystery to me – but they have a lot on the line too.

      The least reported aspect of this story is who gave to the sun, and why ,given what happened with Ignatieff they wouldn't be keen to disclose who? I suppose it was anonymously done [ which says a lot about the Sun accepting it right there] and i think we can safely assume they don't know themselves that it was the libs,since i hardly think they'd respect that confidence. Curiouser and curiouser.

  11. Amazing how you answered my question with a baseless attack of your own. Not once did I engage in innuendo or fail to use the word "allegedly" where appropriate. You're starting to get real tiresome. I'd appreciate a legitimate point from you real soon. Thanks.

    • If you understand the meaning of "in a compromising position", then you'll understand why you're engaging in baseless innuendo.

      I'm not getting my hopes up. Is there anybody there who could explain it to you?

      • Sorry, but lectures from faux intellects like you are of no interest or benefit to me. lol

        It is not "baseless innuendo" if it accurately describes what the arresting officer said of the scene. Or is even this too fast for you? lol. Next.

        • Really? Can you provide a quote in which the officer (if his notes are accurate) described Layton as being "in a compromising position"?

          Direct quote, please.

          • He was naked and an alleged (there, you happy?) hooker was seen throwing a kleenex away. When both of them were asked about it afterwards, they didn't have much of a response. Seems pretty compromising to me.

          • Heh – if your standards held any bearing in the real world, Harper, "Senator" Finley and Tom Flanagan would be in jail for trying to bribe Chuck Cadman.

            Fortunately, responsible adults have higher standards than that.

          • Ah, when all else fails, start slinging some mud of your own. Did that feel good? Next.

          • Read it again, dumbass. I said that the Cadman case fell short of standards for actual evidence, and would be damning only by your ridiculously low standards.

            Honestly, you should at least re-read your own stuff before hitting "submit". You might have fewer Nike abrasions on the back of your own throat.

          • What in the world do any of your mudslinging accusations have to do with the topic we were discussing? And you had the gall to accuse me of "baseless innuendo" or of being a "dumbass". Unbelievable the spectacle some people make of themselves on here. Amusing, too.

          • GALL!!!!
            I'm shocked you fell back on your favourite word.

          • Are you too stupid to post substantive responses on here? Too angry? If I'm wrong, please enlighten me. Thank you.

          • "Are you too stupid to post substantive responses on here?"

            Seriously? Speaking of gall,,,

          • Why do you support inane posters like this? Is it ideology? Hatred? Stupidity? What?

          • at some stage it's worth wondering why your comments aren't getting the support your debaters' are (and I can't find it's rabid partisanship). It's interesting that the best comments (Noob's) didn't get a response from you. Pity.

          • Who in the world are you trying to kid? I think you posted under another name "Gall!!" above with your trolling remark and you're at plus 8. This is a left-wing hot-bed. You people can't stand to be challenged, and so you engage in these attacks instead of my arguments. You're right. Noob doesn't, and I have exchanges with him all the time, which you conveniently ignore. Next.

        • Thank God he used his "lol. Next." It means this particular faux rant is done. Unfortunately it also means he's just moved on to another one.

          • No, it means I'm responding to another knee-jerk poster on here. lol. next.

      • Explain something to Dennis? We've all tried, time & time again; once he gets something in his head, any counter-arguments, no matter how cogent, have all the impact of a wet noodle on Kevlar.

  12. Steve Harper and his minions at Sun Media won't change my mind.

    I'm voting for Layton, and I've never voted NDP in my life. Put that in your pipe Steve, and smoke it.

  13. Personally i couldn't give a rat's ass if Layton indulged in a little extra on the side or not.

    Granted it wouldn't look too good on him as a married man, but we don't know if it was with spousal consent.Still somewhat icky. But Jack and spouse are both consenting adults.

    The only thing that would really bother me is if he knowingly frequented an establishment that he knew used what are basically sex slaves. Particular given his views in that area. It would amount to unforgivable hypocisy.
    Again it must be stressed he's innocent until proven guilty. He has not been charged with anything. And he gets my benefit of the doubt given this is right on the eve of the election an ALL the other parties have clearly a vested interest in this story harming him.

    • Not only was he not charged, but I have seen no evidence that the establishment or any of its employees were ever charged.

      • Obviously we need to crank out those tory prisons pronto. Where's Stockwell when you need him? This is clearly a major outbreak of unreported crime. Can we send Baird orNicholson back in the tardis? This is what comes of NOT stacking the senate with tory cronies.

        • LOL!

  14. This is no big deal. The real news is what Layton did back in 1991.

    • My lord, how I wish I didn't follow that link. That image is not going to fade from my memory banks anytime soon… and that is not a good thing.

      • "Set your phasers to STUNNING!"

        • If he turns up another photo of Ignatieff decked out as Spock i'm leaving.

          • "For the last time, Ensign Duceppe, we're NOT going to separate the saucer section. Now pipe down."

          • Does not correlate. Will have to pass that one on to Commodore Harper – sometimes affectionately known within his caucus as Data – for authentication.

            Update: Apparently he says: f'k'm, they can go if they like. But they're kicked out of the federation for good this time.

        • Snort! Is that a quote? Are you really Andre Leon Talley?

      • Oh I am with you gottabesaid, my eyes, my eyes…

    • If you are going to wear a Star Trek uniform – why go as a red-shirt. Aren't they the ones that end up dying?

      • This apparently comes up a lot, but the red shirts only die in the first Star Trek.

        For Star Trek The Next Generation, red shirts are worn by command officers. I know this because I just wondered the same thing and saw it answered in the original flickr thread.

        • U-huh. The flickr thread. Right. C'mon. Don't be shy. Let your Trekkie flag fly free!

  15. .
    Layton is 'admitting' to no more than what he says: nothing wrong. People are openly admitting they intend in May to give somebody committing incremental democracide ANOTHER 4-year socio-political blow-job.

    People who, applauding this leak of doubtful authenticity, would turn around in an instant and wave their righteous fingers under WikiLeaks nose. For the very REASON of the latter's credibility.

  16. Even the U.S. state department has questions about Harper's regard for democratic values:

    "Some comments appear disdainful of Conservative political moves, such as the appointment of five new senators to gain control of the upper house.' –Toronto Star, based on WikiLeaks.

  17. I find this story unbelieveable that was released by Sun Media.

    I find it even more unbelievable that Jack Layton would say "I left when the Police told me to and there were no more questions". Of course they didn't charge him, he was a City Official caught with his pants down.

    After 9:30 p.m. Jack Layton found stark naked in a known Bawdy House according to the Police, in the company of a young asian girl (known to police) with previous arrests for prostitution.

    The owner of the Bawdy house had a Red and Green light system going. He would turn on the red light if the Police were in the area and a green light indicating "anything goes".

    I think Mr. Layton has lived in Subsidized housing far too long when he doesn't know what a Bawdy house is, not to mention the fact he didn't know what a "Private hospital was either". Is this the man we want running our Country.?? God forbid!!

    This was according to a retired Police Detective who was at the scene and found Jack Layton naked.

    Anytime I go for a massage, and everyone else I know, you always keep your briefs/underwear on…..he was stark naked.

    • This is the first I've heard of the light system – is this from personal knowledge?

    • You may find it unbelievable but you sure are trying your best to use it to sway folks to your point of view. This election may be known as the one where conservatives cried wolf once (hundreds?) too often.

  18. One suspects that if Layton then claimed to sprout wings and fly away from the scene,

    the leftist partisans here would clap their hands and spread joy to the world that their new leader can fly like a bird.

    • One suspects that if the masseuse in question were to step forward and say it was just a massage,

      the rightist Conbots here would immediately ask how much she was paid THIS time… and demand proof that she wasn't

    • I think I speak for all the leftist partisans and, well, the rightist partisans when I say… huh?

      • It's Chet. No "huh?" required.

  19. Note to objective non partisan voters:

    If Layton becomes PM expect everything to be taken at face value, and even the rediculously implausible coming from Jack will be declared true and right.

    • You mean the way CPC hacks take Dear Leader's word on everything?

    • If the Conservatives have done their job and won the minds of voters than tomorrow there will be a Conservative Government returned.
      If they've failed to win the minds of voters they have no one to blame but those who believed pursuing "Hollywood" topics mattered more than policy. After two tries at governing it's no longer enough to blame others, results are demanded.

    • lol. Next.

  20. Top Ten Suspects who brought forward the Buck Naked John story.

    The Bloc. That will show Mr. Smarty Pants who should get all the votes in Quebec
    The Liberals. Iggy nation was waning and what better than a vision of Jack "pantless" to cheer them up.
    Thomas Mulcair. He is good enough, he is smart enough and doggone people like him.
    The Conservatives. Just wanted to show how Jack Layton was putting the "social" back into socialist.
    The NDP. Hey over here, look at us, our leader is a risk taker, and rides a bicycle.
    Elizabeth May. More secrets to come if Lizzie don't get her senate seat.
    Aaron Wherry. Don't be messing with my BFF Iggy.
    Andrew Coyne. He said vote liberal not for the raging commie
    The CBC. They got a giggle out of the story but not in their progressive contract to air hard news.
    And last but not least
    Big Stinking Dirty Oil. Tar, you want some tar, heres some tar for you Jack.

    • "The Bloc. That will show Mr. Smarty Pants who should get all the votes in Quebec"

      From what I know of Quebec, this would actually boost his popularity…

  21. To the commenter above who says he's gone for messsage therapy where he's "almost naked" too.

    Firstly, "almost naked" is like being "almost dead". At the local community pool we're all "almost naked" but if I go to "completely naked" I get arrested. Most in society recognize the significance of being completely naked in any context,

    but particularly in the context of a known bawdy house (green light sex OK)

    where the "masseuse" was known to police as a prostitute,

    where Jack couldn't explain why he was naked.

    Frankly it's frightening how the very same people who search deeply for the sinister motives underlying Harper wearing a sweater vest, believe Jack would go to a known brothel, get buck naked (and oh…that full tissue…yuck) and it was all just to work out a leg injury of some sort.

    There's a point where blind partisanship, turns into active dishonesty to help "their guy" and it appears we've long past that point.

    • If it mattered why is this the first election for anyone to bring it up. It's been fifteen plus years.

    • i get massages at a place they also do hair and nails. I do get naked but in a strip naked and get under the towel on my own scenario.

      Not the best judgement to be there, but more than that is conjecture the services rendered.
      People have would probably get more upset and that would please you more if there was:

      a) more than conjecture.
      b) no obvious illegal activity (releasing notes) in a smear campaign (16 year old case).
      c) a main competition that didn't have judgement issues of his own, i.e. hiring ex-cons to the PMO office.

    • Almost naked means in your skivvies. Which you must be if you're getting a massage. That massage oil stains the crap out of clothing, don't you know.

  22. I think is gross, I don't care if you are a politician, actor, athlete, etc, is just disgusting, it reminds me of Billy Clinton and his "I didn't had sex with that woman" . I might sound prudish but I do tend to loose respect for anyone who does that, never could see Hugh Grant the same way, gross!!

    • Bill and Hugh weren't getting massages though. They were having sex. Does that distinction help at all?

      • Not really, I wasn't born yesterday, but that's between him and his wife, I only know that I do not respect people who does that.

        • He got a massage. Sixteen years ago. Since then, he's run for councillor several times, run for mayor, run for the NDP leadership and run in three federal elections as the most trusted and best-liked federal leader. If there were something more to this story, why didn't it come out much earlier? It will take more than an unnamed source quoting an unseen document to persuade me there's more to this than a massage.

  23. Might Jack have at least chosen a different phrase than "community clinic" to describe the venue in question, or better yet, not described it at all?

  24. Who's behind getting this story into the media… Libs, Cons, Green or perhaps NDP themselves? The real question is who has the most to gain by disrupting the Canadian economy?

    Canada exports 2,193,000 barrels of oil per day.
    73% or our exports are to the US amounting to approx $1.7 billion per day.
    Canada is the largest foreign supplier of energy to the US.
    In 2007 the CDN$ reached parity with the greenback, is worth more today, and continues to rise.

    Over the last 20 years through the Libs and Cons the US has increased their dependence on Canadian energy and other natural resources. The US requires cheap energy to remain competitive and lift it out of recession. The infrastructure and delivery mechanisms have been built. What's required now is a devalued CDN$ to allow for the cheap flow of Canadian resources.

    Frankly I don't care who originated the story or whether it's true. I do care that Canada weathered the global recession much better than other countries and is in a much stronger position. I will vote for the party most committed to strengthening Canada's economy in relation to her peers. Only through a strong economy will my children experience the quality of life I have been lucky enough to enjoy as a Canadian.