- Harper, 'Tough on Con's' Agenda ???

Posted: 3/10/2010 10:37:25 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories bristle when asked to explain Rahim Jaffer's 'slap on the wrist', Jane Taber , 9 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-bristle-when-asked-to-explain-rahim-jaffers-slap-on-the-wrist/article1495270/ Tab 86

Stephen Harper, Rob Nicholson, Vic Toews, Stockwell Day, John Baird and Jim Flaherty, and all the Con's may have a 'Tough on Crime" policy.

But, apparently it is not a "Tough on Con's" policy.

Judges in Canada are appointed for life. The reason is to detach themselves politically and establish and maintain independence. The Canadian judicial system differs from the US in this respect (Senators are appointed for life on the same theory). Our Judiciary has a long tradition of independence.

This should be distinguished from the appointment of people to the bench that have a conservative value system. Everyone has a particular value system which may be conservative, liberal or otherwise. Judges are expected to rely on their experience and value system in making their judgments - hence 'judgment'. However, the value system ought to be in line with the general values of our society. This is most likely to occur when it is a majority government of a moderate nature, that has been in power for a number of years and has the good of all Canadians at heart, as opposed to promoting a particular ideology. The more extreme the ideology of the government, the smaller and more distinct the sector of the population they represent and the more partizan the appointments the less likely these value systems correspond with the general values of the society but that of a small sector. This of course, is the danger of someone like Harper and the Con's wielding executive powers.

I find it very difficult to believe that the judge in this case would accept a plea bargain (a judge does not have to accept a plea bargain) and hand down a sentence in this case based on political considerations - in this case it appear that once the plea bargain is accepted the sentence is automatic, perhaps someone could clarify this.

On the other hand, Winnipeg Liberal MP Anita Neville makes an important and valid point.

Harper, Nicholson and the Con's appear very hypocritical about this. How many times in the past few years have we all heard the Con's accusing our judges of not being tough enough. One would expect that they should be up and arms about the treatment of Jaffer and demand that Jaffer allow the details released. The optics are, of course, because of his political connections to the Con party.

Perhaps someone could go over all "Tough on crime" rhetoric, talking points, policy statements and proposed legislation that Harper and the Con's have espoused up till now and apply it to the Jaffer case. Let me know what the result is.

Also, I believe strongly in the privacy of individual citizens and I am a strong believer in plea-bargains.
But one would think that Jaffer would want the details released in order to try to put it all to rest otherwise this will likely haunt him in any future public life activity. For politicians the taint of guilt in the minds of the people is sufficient.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html