03.14.2010 07:19 PM

Question Period, March 14: Jaffer-gate continues apace


Me debating John? Okay, I’m sorry, but this is weird.

Linkage here.

Story here.


8 Comments

  1. SteveV says:

    In Tory’s defence, he’s a radio host now, which provides the illusion that right wing nutjob positions are actually representative of mainstream opinion. He probably thinks global warming is a socialist conspiracy now to.

  2. Steve T says:

    Please explain how the Jaffer situation is “Jaffer-Gate”. An independent judge made a decision about the case. Are you suggesting the judge was influenced? Well, name names then. Who influenced the judge? Was it payola, or promises of some patronage position, or what?

    In reality, while this may have been a stupid decision, it had nothing to do with political influence. There are lots of stupid judicial decisions made every day. It’s what we call the light-on-crime Canadian justice system. Criticize that, rather than trying to dream up conspiracy theories that don’t exist. It’s lazy politics, and it’s what is turning off Canadians in droves from becoming engaged in the political process.

  3. Steve says:

    Warren

    No wonder it’s as you say ” continues a pace ”

    When Oliver QP Teed up, gift wrapped, and soft balled you that whopper of a biased question ” does the Jaffer scandal hurt the Conservative brand?”

    You got the whole liberal media to keep this going for you.

    That was easy!

  4. Connoisseur says:

    Found this Letter to the Editor re Hurricane Helena in The Barrie Examiner:
    (I especially love/agree with the last line) 🙂

    A short note to Simcoe-Grey MP and Minister of State for the Status of Women Helena Guergis

    Dear Ms. Guergis:

    As a resident of Prince Edward Island, I found your actions at the Charlottetown airport to be very child-like and unfitting for a MP and a cabinet minister.The security personnel at the airport were only doing the job that they are paid to do (for a lot less money then what you earn), in order to protect the lives of ‘everyone’ who travels by air. If a security person screws up and doesn’t do their job exactly as they are supposed to, and someone gets on board with an explosive device, people will die. Remember that the next time you are flying, because even if you consider it an ‘inconvenience’, everyone else has to go through the same ‘inconvenience’ for the safety of all passengers, including you. As far as P.E.I. being, “a hell hole”, I lived in Angus for 20 years, and I would much rather live in P.E.I. than in Angus.

    John Clow
    Summmerside, P.E.I.

  5. JStanton says:

    It didn’t take long for Mr. Tory to resort to the “last refuge of a Scoundrel” gambit, when insisting that the questioning of Mr. Jaffer’s deal was “an insult to all police officers”, Dept of Justice officials, etc. This tactic is typically used by conservatives to misdirect attention away from facts about or debate over an issue.

    They like to keep the little people afraid by jerking on their leashes to remind them who’s boss.

    Question the sweet-heart court deal for a Conservative cabinet minister’s spouse? Must mean that you hate cops. Well, in that case, they may not be there if you have a home invasion. Question Conservative government policy that allows the handing over of prisoners to tortures and murderers, contrary to law? Must mean that you hate grunts. Well, in that case, they may not be there if terrorists attack your family. Question Conservative government manipulation of the publicly funded Olympics and Queen’s visit for political purposes? Must mean that you hate Canada. In that case, there may be problems with your residence here, and you might have to go back to (insert name of sh*t-hole considerably worse “than PEI”).

    For some reason, I had just assumed that Mr. Tory was a gentleman.

  6. Johnny Tuna says:

    The point is not that the Judge was influenced. A Judge cannot convict a guy on charges that are withdrawn. The issue is why charges were withdrawn, and the reasoning stinks. Impaired driving charges are not withdrawn as a matter of course – why should they be when the police have a breathalyser reading? How can the Crown suggest that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction when they have a breathalyser reading? The only possibility is that the police conduct was so egregious that it demanded withdrawal – which I do not believe. Hell, if the guy was driving 5 km faster, he could have had his car seized, so there was clearly a valid reason to pull him over. But assuming the police conduct was outrageous – then I want to know what that conduct is. The police should not be protected when their conduct is preventing(alleged) lawbreakers from being convicted.

  7. Xenos says:

    So what I want to know is whether Jaffer took the cocaine to the meeting, or was he taking the cocaine home from the meeting? What was the meeting for, by the way?

  8. Mulletaur says:

    Strange that John Tory is so offside with the rest of his party on this one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*