current forum:National & International Affairs

[bgilchrist001]

Can this guy really be seen as a private citizen. Isn't he a politician who lost his seat in 2008?

He isn't an MP or MLA right now. I think that classifies him as a private citizen. Unless he is like one of those wack job city councillors that lists their occupation as politician that thinks they are between jobs.

Isn't he married to a former colleague and member of parliament?

So you should be judged based on the occupation of your spouse?

Isn't he a high ranking member of the conservative party in Alberta. It does seem like this guy has cultivated a public life. And has made some very high profile public comments about drugs and crime too. So I don't think he can be classified in the same category as you and me.
Also, he is still hoping to win political office sometime in the future, at least that was his stated intent before he got caught breaking the law: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... b=Politics

Good luck getting elected again.

So what are you saying? That the law should be applied differently to this individual because he is a politician? Yeah, he should know better, but we only have one set of laws here in Canada. Where next? Police get a different set of laws? Lawyers? Doctors? Anyone with any role in the justice system?

[zander]

Can this guy really be seen as a private citizen. Isn't he a politician who lost his seat in 2008? Isn't he married to a former colleague and member of parliament? Isn't he a high ranking member of the conservative party in Alberta. It does seem like this guy has cultivated a public life. And has made some very high profile public comments about drugs and crime too. So I don't think he can be classified in the same category as you and me.

Toews seems to miss the real point here. There very well may be legitimate legal reasons for why the charges were dropped. It's difficult to prove that the cocaine in the backseat was Jaffer's or there may have been problems with the breathalyzer. And the judge's political affiliation is about as useful as the reality-challenged claim that the Ontario Liberals are responsible, as the Crown prosecutor ultimately reports to the Ontario AG (a Liberal).

Regardless, the public perception of the issue is that Jaffer was treated more leniently because of his political connections. That's a tough one to shake and it likely spells the end of his political career. The anti-drug ad he recorded in 2008 will be hauled out if he ever tries to seek office again.

And whether this perception is based in reality or not, Toews does himself no favours by going on the offensive against the Free Press. All that does is make it seem that he would rather point fingers at others than tackle the very real public questions around this issue*.

And for someone who has always portrayed himself as a tough-on-crime politician, that's not helpful. He has already demonstrated that his private life doesn't necessarily reflect the views he espouses in public. His attack on Rabson and the Free Press just furthers this view.

* That's what one would call a "diversionary tactic"

[Northender]

Can this guy really be seen as a private citizen. Isn't he a politician who lost his seat in 2008?

He isn't an MP or MLA right now. I think that classifies him as a private citizen. Unless he is like one of those wack job city councillors that lists their occupation as politician that thinks they are between jobs.

Isn't he married to a former colleague and member of parliament?

So you should be judged based on the occupation of your spouse?

Isn't he a high ranking member of the conservative party in Alberta. It does seem like this guy has cultivated a public life. And has made some very high profile public comments about drugs and crime too. So I don't think he can be classified in the same category as you and me.
Also, he is still hoping to win political office sometime in the future, at least that was his stated intent before he got caught breaking the law: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... b=Politics

Good luck getting elected again.

So what are you saying? That the law should be applied differently to this individual because he is a politician? Yeah, he should know better, but we only have one set of laws here in Canada. Where next? Police get a different set of laws? Lawyers? Doctors? Anyone with any role in the justice system?

None of the above. Just saying I don't agree with you that he is just like any other private citizen.

[bgilchrist001]

Toews seems to miss the real point here. There very well may be legitimate legal reasons for why the charges were dropped. It's difficult to prove that the cocaine in the backseat was Jaffer's or there may have been problems with the breathalyzer. And the judge's political affiliation is about as useful as the reality-challenged claim that the Ontario Liberals are responsible, as the Crown prosecutor ultimately reports to the Ontario AG (a Liberal).

Agreed. Although I don't think his point was that the Ontario Liberals were responsible, but that this falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Regardless, the public perception of the issue is that Jaffer was treated more leniently because of his political connections. That's a tough one to shake and it likely spells the end of his political career. The anti-drug ad he recorded in 2008 will be hauled out if he ever tries to seek office again.

Agreed

And whether this perception is based in reality or not, Toews does himself no favours by going on the offensive against the Free Press. All that does is make it seem that he would rather point fingers at others than tackle the very real public questions around this issue*.

Okay, but when do you point out that the freep is a shitrag and their columnists show an obvious Liberal bias? When they're praising you? Of course most are going to point it out when you are criticized. Is he correct with some of his criticism? Damn straight. Does the timing make him look bad? You bet.

And for someone who has always portrayed himself as a tough-on-crime politician, that's not helpful. He has already demonstrated that his private life doesn't necessarily reflect the views he espouses in public. His attack on Rabson and the Free Press just furthers this view.

How so?

Maybe he understands that as a federal tough on crime politician, his job is developing laws to eliminate loop holes and ensure that appropriate sentences get doled out?