The wronged MP for Simcoe-Grey - Macleans.ca
 

The wronged MP for Simcoe-Grey


 

Helena Guergis asks the Conservative Party to explain precisely what she has done to deserve her excommunication.

Guergis, in a letter to Conservative party executive director Dan Hilton, says no one — neither Harper nor the party — has spelled out just what it is that she is accused of doing. “Your letter refers to recent events as the reason that this decision was made,” she wrote in response to Hilton’s letter informing her that the party had stripped her of the right to run as a Conservative. “Perhaps you could highlight for me what I have done to justify this drastic measure. Specifically, I ask that you please provide the details of what led the (party) to make this decision, especially at a time when no election is imminent…

“In recent weeks, in essence, I have been charged, convicted, and sentenced without any due process or knowing what I have done wrong. There have been endless rumours and allegations unfairly levelled against me, but to date I have not been given a specific reason for my removal from caucus nor has there been any investigation launched, let alone concluded,” Guergis wrote.


 

The wronged MP for Simcoe-Grey

  1. Dear HollinsM – apparently – you appear to be convicting Ms. Guergis on evidence presented against her husband. But not surprising really – since when did any Neocon Law and Order policy base itself on real facts…but I digress!
    Here – from the Simcoe-Grey Riding Association – is a complaint and chronology of the decidedly un-democratic circumstances surrounding the complaint – that points up the Dictatorial mien of Mr. Harper and his gang of cohorts – from the pens of – heavens – Conservative party brass – not some "mealy mouthed mud slinging bleeding hearted Liberals"… http://www.madhunt.com/simcoegreyEDA-lett-2010050

    • When you can justify to me why a duly nominated black woman was turfed from her riding and Iffy parachuted in then we can talk. Until then I don't have any intention of addressing your hysterical ugly remarks. Have a good day living in your fantasy world. The fact is all parties dictate who can and cannot run in particular ridings. Dion had a quota system of 33% women needed to be nominated. So quit with the friggin' bafflegab. All parties control who runs for the party. The leader has to sign their bloody nomination papers. You don't know what you are talking about.

  2. She should sue Stephen Harper and the party. And that Snowdy chap.

    • Snowdy maybe but Harper not likely. Political organizations are private entities and can make whatever rules they want. The leader of each party must sign the nomination papers of each candidate. No matter what the constituency says if the leader refuses that candidate is not recognized. It may not be right but that's how it is.

  3. I doubt she was concerned with this not unfamiliar behaviour from party command when she was on the other side of the fence. But I do feel sorry for her because I have a big ego too and I know how bad it hurts when you get your comeuppance.

    • Are you slow on the uptake here. The PM was advised of unproven allegations. He is not going to expose himself should those allegations be proven untrue by cavalerly mentioning them in public. However, he is the leader of a party and he needs to protect the reputation and the brand of the party. He felt the information had some merit and informed the various authorities. What more can you ask? I know it doesn't fit into your political narrative but that's how it is.

  4. She's got a point. I think most Canadians would like to know exactly why she was tossed from caucus. Mr. Harper?

  5. “Perhaps you could highlight for me what I have done to justify this drastic measure."

    Oh, that's an easy one, Helena– you hurt the party's polling numbers.

    • if anything the party's polling numbers have been on the rise, no?

      • Maybe nationally, but the word is that that's not the case in Simcoe-Grey.

    • … and hurting The Party is, quite naturally, considered to be criminal in nature, thus the RCMP investigation Harper launched.

  6. "Specifically, I ask that you please provide the details of what led the (party) to make this decision, especially at a time when no election is imminent…"

    Bob Fife commented yesterday that he's been 'informed' by an insider that she's been dumped because the (party) *is* expecting an imminent election. The thot plickens…

    • That's interesting.

  7. This is getting painful to watch…

  8. I don't think that she will go gently. Tokenism has backfired once again. I do not intend to vote Conservative, but she has been treated shabbily.

    • Treated shabbily? Have you watched the shenangins in the House of Commons and the Committee? This woman allowed herself to be manipulated by her husband and caused her party to lose confidence in her, pure and simply. Politics is politics and it is a dirty business. Her credibility has been shot and until all of the police investigations, ethics investigations and lobbying investigations are done she is not fit to be representing the party in her constuency.

      If we had some real leaders in the various parties they simply would have allowed the ethics commissioner and the lobbyist chair and the police to investigate the various issues. No this was not good enough for the animals that occupy the media and the opposition benches. They destroyed her professionally and personally. This is the result.

      • So shorter hollinm, because she's hurting our polling #'s, or has the potential to, it's perfectly fine to dump her, but it's the media and oppposition parties fault we had to do this.

        I'd like to know whether or not you're working for the PMO, Hollin, because if you aren't, you should be, wit the type of spin you conjure up on here.

        • So shorter Scott Tribe, it's all right for the opposition and media to destroy her reputation based on innuendo and no facts, to make up scandals out of nothing issues like how she got her mortgage and to report made up accusations that she lied about her MBA and that she gave Rahim a Blackberry…and it's perfectly OK to go about demanding her resignation…but it's wrong for the Prime Minister to actually get rid of her.

          • So, shorter john g, the opposition are terrible, bad, bad people who destroyed a woman's reputation with innuendo, and no facts, and made up a bunch of trumped up accusations about her out of nothing… and all the poor PM did was fire her, kick her out of caucus, and stop her from running as a Conservative ever again based on the opposition's complete lack of facts and trumped up accusations out of nothing. I mean, faced with innuendo, no facts, and opposition created "scandals" made up of nothing, what else could the Prime Minister do but deliver the final blow?

            It's the continuation of the "the Liberals made us do it" argument. Of COURSE the dastardly opposition had no reason to attack Guergis, but once they started attacking her for no reason, what choice did the PM have but to join them? If there's one thing we've learned about the Harper government, it's that they're all about doing whatever it is the Liberals did first. That's why "Chretien used to do it" is currently the Tories' number 1 rationalization for everything they do that seems to be the exact opposite of what they SAID they'd do when on the election trail.

            I'm absolutely convinced that Harper turfed Guergis because someone told him that that's what Jean Chretien would have done in his place.

          • So, shorter Lord Kitchener, blah blah blah

            pompous.

            Cats should be humble.

          • :-)

            And yes, cats should be humble, but I've never seen a humble cat.

          • That's not shorter at all. That's much longer than what I wrote.

            I probably shouldn't have mentioned opposition; it was more the media that performed the character assassination.

            It just strikes me as silly that the same people demanding Guergis's head on a platter get it, and then all they can do is complain about the manner in which it was delivered.

          • Well, to be fair to the opposition, they were demanding her resignation, and the PM handed over her resignation, her seat in caucus, her ability to run for the Tories again, and based all of those actions on "serious allegations" that he said he turned over to the RCMP for investigation, with no indication whatsoever as to what serious thing was being alleged.

            I would describe it less as the opposition demanding her head and then complaining about the manner in which it was delivered, and more as the opposition demanding that she be exiled, and then scrambling to figure out why the PM's response to that demand was to remove her head and deliver it on a platter.

            I could be wrong, but even as they called for her resignation I don't believe the opposition was alleging that, in addition to losing her Cabinet position, serious allegations needed to be turned over to our national police force to be investigated. Having discovered that the PM apparently turned over serious allegations to our national police force for investigation (which they discovered by watching the PM announce it on T.V.) it's not shocking to me that the opposition would like to know what those allegations are, and whether or not they are indeed being investigated by the RCMP.

      • " No this was not good enough for the animals that occupy the media and the opposition benches. They destroyed her professionally and personally…"

        Presumably they did so by temporarily hijacking Stephan Harper's mind, and body, and voice to condemn the woman for "secret" crimes and turf her unceremoniously from the party. Those animals in the opposition and in the media are diabolically clever like that.

        Behold the intellectual gifts of the Conservative <s>Rube</s> Partisan.

        • Did the Prime Minister plant and run with the false allegations that she lied about getting her MBA?

          Did the Prime Minister make Bob Fife show up on CTV Question Period in an outrage because he didn't like the size of Helena Guergis' mortgage, even though he had no evidence it was obtained fradulently?

          Did the Prime Minister bring Guergis' miscarriages into the picture?

          Come on lgarvin. You can't have it both ways. If what Harper did was not OK, then what the media did to Guergis before Harper stepped in was pretty frigging far from OK as well. Calling them animals is not as facetious as you are being.

          • You can't have it both ways

            I don't want it both ways. Harper put the knives into Guergis – front and back – based on secret evidence known only to himself, his private dick, and -allegedly – the RCMP. Quite a problem for the folks who want to insist that Harper is really motivated by opposition and media outrage about a bunch of bogus scandalettes. Whether or not they realize, they are defending Harper by insisting that he is lying about his own motives. That's a pretty weak defence, in my books.

            This government is perfectly capable of standing up to the opposition and the media when they want to… See, for instance, everything they've done up to this point on the detainee issue, prorogation, funding cuts to those who don't STFU and a myriad of other issues. Harper threw Guergis under the bus, on his own initiative, for reasons that he's refused to discuss.

          • I dunno why I have to keep cutting up comments, it's annoying.

            Anyway, here's another angle on this thing that I think requires some attention; if Harper's secret evidence against Helena involves any improper access for her husband, then he's going to have a pretty tough time explaining why Jaffer's wife gets excommunicated whereas Jaffer's buddies get off scott free. We are now up to eight Ministries accused of providing improper access to Jaffer. The Cons had better hope that Guergis was drowning kittens or stealing from the collection plate.

        • Are you dafted with that comment. I stand by the quote you so generously repeated for all to see. The opposition saw a wounded minister and attacked with all the ferociousness they could muster with Iffy even condescendingly referring to her as Ms. Jaffer which she never went by.

          Did you not see the outrageous headlines for over two weeks running non stop in media and TV? The PM was not going to expound upon unproven allegations like it or not. He asked the RCMP to investigate but that wasn't good enough. Do you see how many watch dogs are investigating her? Come on get real. This is politics and only the fitest survive.

  9. Guergis went from being just another pretty face behind Harper in QP to being just another political liability. Harper has no loyalty to anyone but himself so I am surprised that she is surprised.

  10. I thought this was a democracy. Apparently wrong.
    I thought candidates were selected by residents of a riding. Apparently wrong.
    Last time she was in the riding they supported her. Under what authority can the PM remove her from contention?
    If Harper doesn't like you, you can kiss your life goodbye. Just ask Khadr.

    • I thought candidates were selected by residents of a riding

      Well, that one's DEFINITELY wrong.

      • She doesn't know what she is talking about like a number of posters on this blog… current company excepted.

  11. I thought this was a democracy. Apparently wrong.
    I thought candidates were selected by residents of a riding. Apparently wrong.
    Last time she was in the riding they supported her. Under what authority can the PM remove her from contention?
    If Harper doesn't like you, you can kiss your life goodbye. Just ask Khadr.

  12. Helena, if you're reading this, Senator Nancy Ruth wants to know if you have a twitter account. She has a 16 character tweet for you (not including the exclamation marks).

  13. So now we know for sure that the Conservatives don't like women or due process.

    • And Liberals love criminals, terrorists and rapists!
      There that was easy and was done with the same amount of thought as your comment!

  14. I doubt she was concerned with this not unfamiliar behaviour from party command when she was on the other side of the fence. But I do feel sorry for her because I have a big ego too and I know how bad it hurts when you get your comeuppance.

  15. Oh no, don't make an exception for me! You'd say I don't know what I'm talking about too if I'd replied to some of your posts. I just didn't.

    :-)